Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MISCELLANEOUS (2)
June 25, 2002 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Council TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council p!o 4� v.•t� FROM: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Comm. O RE: JWA Settlement Agreement a Proposed Amendments c DATE: June 25, 2002 BACKGROUND In March of 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (Board) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court asking for a judicial determination that they had fully complied with all laws in approving the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Master Plan. In August of 1985, the City Council, the Board, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and the Airport Working Group (AWG) approved a stipulation that allowed the County to implement the flight increases and facility improvements contemplated by the Master Plan (with some modifications) subject to assurances that no further increases in flights or facilities would occur for a period of twenty (20) years (JWA Settlement Agreement). The parties to the JWA Settlement Agreement have, on seven different occasions over the last seventeen (17) years, approved stipulations that modified, or otherwise related to the enforcement of, the Settlement Agreement. In August of 2000, the City Council asked the Board to consider amendments to JWA Settlement Agreement. In December of 2000, the Board directed the CEO "to work with the City to study the potential of extending certain restrictions at JWA." On May 22, 2001, the Board and the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that established a process for the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR 582) to study three "project scenarios" and other alternatives as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Each of the three project scenarios assumed amendments to the JWA Settlement Agreement that would, in comparison to existing provisions, authorize an increase in the maximum number of permitted passenger loading bridges, noise regulated departures and passenger levels as well as an extension of the term of the JWA Settlement Agreement. On February 26, 2002, the Board certified EIR 582 and directed staff to work with the City to prepare amendments to the Settlement Agreement consistent with the "framework" of Scenario 1. The key provisions of A Scenario 1 are contained in Exhibit A and are compared to the other "scenarios" and alternatives evaluated in EIR 582. In summary, Scenario 1 - which assumes a ten-year extension of the term - authorizes 12 additional noise -regulated departures, an increase of 1.4 million annual passengers (MAP). and four (4) additional loading bridges. DISCUSSION Staff has, In cooperation with representatives of AWG and SPON, worked with the Airport Director and lawyers for the County to draft amendments to the JWA Settlement Agreement consistent with Scenario 1 and with a view towards ensuring that the protection afforded by the Settlement Agreement remains in effect during the entire term. The proposed amendments are contained in the "Eighth Amended Stipulation" (Amendment) that is Exhibit B to this memo. The Amendment Is consistent with the framework of Scenario 1- which extends the term to the end of 2015 - but the curfew will remain in effect until the end of 2026. Staff has also prepared: a document entitled•"Ixapiementation Protocol" (Exhibit C) which outlines the procedures the parties will follow after approval to ensure effective communication among the parties and between the parties and interested persons such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Air Transport Association (ATA). Finally, staff has prepared findings (Exhibit D) for the City Council to make since we are a "responsible agency" pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. We have received a copy of a resolution adopted by a SPON subcommittee confirming that they have authorized Roy Woolsey, their attorney, to execute the Amendment. AWG has executed the Implementation Protocol and has authorized the AWG Executive Director to sign the Amendment. T RECOMMENDATION' The Committee recommends the City Council take the following action; 1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute the Amendment (Exhibit B) on behalf of the City of Newport Beach 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Implementation Protocol (Exhibit C); and 3. In conjunction with these authorizations, make the findings specified in Exhibit D. 4. Authorize staff to record a Notice of Determination. Norma Glover, Chair JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee Im AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DEIR 582 PROJECT SCENARIOS/ALTERNATIVES Principal'. ., 'Restfietlobs: y' Amended' z" .�_�•:., , �t ':, _ ..-- ., :end":.. ' ='No:Pio ecY: = Settement= 'ConetFairi& ; ,;'Alteinatfbe" z„-.-•,--._,- A reement; ;' ,' iSceneiio l ' Sceneria.2-': ;".Scenerlo i r Changes Changes Changes Changes Curfew No change prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited No change No change until after until after until after until after 12131 /2020 12/31 /15 12/31 /10 12131 /15 Noise 85 as of No Regulated 73 85 as of 85 as of 85 as of 4/1/2002 and restrictions 79 as of Passenger 1/1/2003 1/1/2005 4/1/2002 100 as of as of 1/1/2005 Flights 1/1/2006 1/1/2006 Annual No No Passenger 8.4 MAP 9.8 MAP as 9.8 MAP 10.8 MAP as restrictions restrictions 8.8 MAP Limit of of 1/1/2003 of 4/1/2002 as of as of 4/1/2006 No Cargo Rights 2 4 as of 2 4 as of 4 as of restrictions 2 1/1/2003 1/1/2006 1/1/2006 as of 1/1/2006 Passenger 18 as of No Loading 14 18 18 as of 18 as of 4/1/2002 and restrictions 16 Bridge (Gate) 1/1/2005 4/1/2002 24 as of as of Limits 1/1/2006 1/1/2006 Settlement Agreement N/A 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 12/31/2010 12/31/2015 applicable 12/31/201-9 Extended to 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael Scott Gatzke (#57076) Lori D. Ballance (#133469) Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance LLP 1921 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760)431-9501 Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel (465618) Richard Oviedo, Deputy County Counsel (462331) County of Orange P.O. Box 1379 Santa Ana, CA 92702-1379 (714) 834-3303 Attorneys for the County of Orange Robert H. Burnham (#44926) City Attorney City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 (949)644-3131 Attorney for the City of Newport Beach BarbaraE. Lichman (#138469) Chevalier, Allen & Lichman 2603 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92714 (949) 474-6967 Attorney for Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. (AWG) Roy B. Woolsey (#18019) 113 Via Venezia Newport Beach, California 92663-5516 (949) 673-3731 Attorney for Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, ) Plaintiff, V. ) AIR CALIFORNIA, et al., ) Defendants. ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ) Counterclaimant, V. ) COUNTY OF ORANGE; ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; and DOES 1 ) through 1,000, Inclusive, ) Counterdefendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. ) No. CV 85-1542 TJH (MCx) EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, STOP POLLUTING OURNEWPORT, AND THE AIRPORT WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC., AMENDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS STIPULATIONS OF THOSE PARTIES AND REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF AN EXECUTORY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 0 [PROPOSED] ORDER FXHTRTT T �a E • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. BASIS FOR THE 111985 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" 1. In November 1985, the County of Orange and the Orange County Board of Supervisors ("Board") (collectively, the "County"), the City of Newport Beach ("City"), Stop Polluting Our Newport ("SPON"), and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. ("AWG") (City, SPON and AWG are sometimes collectively referred to as "the City'), by their respective counsel of record, entered into a stipulation to implement the settlement of the longstanding dispute between the County and the City concerning the development and operation of John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ("JWA") ("the 1985 Settlement Agreement"). The parties are sometimes collectively referred to in this Eighth Supplemental Stipulation by the County and the City ("Amended Stipulation") as the "Settling Parties". On December 15, 1985, the United States District Court entered a final judgment ("the confirming judgment") pursuant to the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The confirming judgment: (1) adjudicated that Environmental Impact Report 508/Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR 508/EIS") was legally adequate for the "EIR 508/EIS Project" (as that term is hereafter defined) under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA" ), the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA'D, and all relevant state and federal implementing regulations; (2) adjudicated that all other claims, controversies and/or counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice; and (3) contained specific provisions for enforcement of the 1985 Settlement Agreement. 2. The compromise settlement reached by the Settling Parties reflected, under all of the circumstances, the individual judgments of the Settling Parties regarding an appropriate or acceptable balance between demand for air travel services in Orange County and any adverse environmental effects associated with the operation of JWA. The Settling Parties acknowledge that, without the 1985 Settlement Agreement and confirming judgment, protracted litigation would have continued and created an ongoing risk of impeding or preventing the County's development of STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JWA, and its ability to create additional access opportunities for commercial operators use JWA. 3. Other provisions of the Settling Parties' agreement included actions that were generally described in, but not implemented directly through, the 1985 Settlement Agreement. Those provisions included actions undertaken by the County in adopting and implementing Resolution Nos. 85-1231, 85-1232 and 85-1233 (all adopted on August 27, 1985) concerning certification of EIR 508/EIS, adoption of additional mitigation measures and additional airport site studies in Orange County, and the parties' dismissal of other litigation concerning JWA. 4. In reaching the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties considered operational and other factors applicable to JWA that are not applicable to any other airport. The 1985 Settlement Stipulation is site specific to JWA, premised upon its unique history, operational characteristics and limitations. Specifically, the essential character of JWA as an airport facil both operationally and environmentally, is defined by the significant and substantial physical an environmental constraints affecting public use of the facility, including, but not limited to, the extremely confined airport area that includes a total of approximately five hundred and four (504) acres, less than four hundred (400) acres of which are available for airfield operations, an extensive highway and local street system that surrounds the area, and residential and commercial areas located generally to the southeast, south, west, southwest, and north of the airport area, and commercial areas to the east of the airport area. 5. Regularly scheduled commercial service was first initiated at JWA in 1967, and since the late 1960s, the County has regulated the use and operation of JWA by a variety of means in an effort to control and reduce any adverse environmental impacts caused by aircraft operations to and from JWA. These regulations have included such restrictions as: (i) strict noise-b limitations on the type of aircraft which are permitted to use JWA, including both commercial al 877PULAT/UN AND /PROPUSEDJ 2 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 general aviation aircraft; (ii) a nighttime "curfew" on aircraft operations exceeding certain specified noise levels; and (iii) limitations on the number of average daily commercial departures which can occur at the facility, either directly or through a limit on the permitted number of annual commercial passengers. Even prior to 1985, the controlled nature of the airport's operation, arising from a wide range of political, environmental, social and economic considerations, had become institutionalized to the extent that the regulated nature of the airport was a definitional component of its character as an air transportation facility. 6. The 1985 Settlement Agreement and confirming judgment were not intended to, and did not: (i) create any rights in favor of any persons other than the Settling Parties; or (ii) make the Settling Parties (other than the County) or any other person, parties to, or third party beneficiaries of, any contractual agreement between the County, as airport proprietor of JWA, and the United States of America (or any of its agencies). H. BASIS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE 1985 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 7. On December 5, 2000, the Board, by a unanimous vote, directed the County Executive Officer ("CEO") to work with the City to study the potential of extending certain restrictions at JWA beyond December 31, 2005. The Board agendized this matter on December 5, 2000, as a result of a request by the City to review the possibility of amending the 1985 Settlement Agreement to extend beyond 2005, and the desire of the County for amendments to certain other terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, that would increase airport capacity and not adversely affect safe airport operations. 8. On May 22, 2001, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the County and the City pursuant to which the County would act as lead agency (with the STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City designated a responsible agency) in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Rel ("EIR") that would support County and City approval of one of the various project case scenarios identified in the EIR regarding amendments to the terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement concerning restrictions at JWA. This EIR was designated as EIR 582 and was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to, and consistent with, CEQA and CEQA GUIDELINES requirements. 9. Final EIR 582 was found complete and adequate under CEQA by the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 2002, On June 25, 2002, the Board: (a) Certified Final EIR 582 as adequate and complete and as containing all information required by CEQA, the CEQA GUIDELINES, and the County Local CEQA Procedures Manual; (b) Adopted the statutorily required Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations consistent CEQA and CEQA GUIDELINES requirements; and (c) Authorized execution of this Amended Stipulation after its approval and execution by the City, SPON and AWG. 10. The three project case scenarios ("Scenarios') evaluated in EIR 582 proposed modifications to some of the provisions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, including an increase in permitted operational and facility capacity and an extension of the term of the agreement. In order to permit the Board and the City to determine the final terms of any amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the three Scenarios were each evaluated in the EIR to an equivalent level of detail that would permit the County and the City to adopt amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement consistent with all or a portion of any Scenario. Each of the three Scenarios propos for the County's and the City's consideration assumed modifications to the terms of the 1985 STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4 A 171 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Settlement Agreement prior to December 31, 2005. Each of the three Scenarios contemplated modifications that would increase noise regulated departures and passenger service levels. 11. The goals and objectives of the County, as the lead agency, the project proponent and the airport proprietor, in preparing EIR 582 and entering into .this Amended Stipulation, included: (a) Recognizing that aviation noise management is crucial to the continued increase in airport capacity; (b) Modifying some restrictions on aircraft operations at JWA under the 1985 Settlement Agreement in a manner that would provide increased air transportation opportunities to the air traveling public using JWA without any adverse effect on aircraft safety; (c) Continuing the County's historical protection of the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA; and (d) Maintaining a reasonable balance between air service and local environmental impacts of that service in a manner that controls and minimizes the County's risk of noise damage claims that otherwise might be made against the County. These objectives are consistent with a long-standing and adopted policy of the County to operate JWA in a manner that provides the maximum air transportation opportunities at JWA, while ensuring that airport operations do not unreasonably result in adverse environmental effects on surrounding communities. 12. In light of these circumstances, goals and objectives, and for ease of reference, the j Settling Parties agree, subject to the approval of the Court,by entry of a Modified Final Judgment consistent with this Amended Stipulation ("the Modified Final Judgment"), that this Amended STIPULATIONAND (PROPOSED/ ORDER 5 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Stipulation contains all of the obligations of the Settling Patties. The County shall have obligation to the City, SPON or AWG, nor shall there be any restriction on the discretion of the County in its capacity as airport proprietor of JWA, except as that obligation or restriction is expressly stated in this Amended Stipulation. 13. This Amended Stipulation continues the essential terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement regarding the County's development and operation of JWA, with certain capacity enhancing modifications, including: (a) Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class A flights and eliminating the Class AA Aircraft definition/distinction, effective upon execution of the Modified Final Judgment by the Court. The definition/distinction for Class E Aircraft is preserved unaffected by this Amended Stipulation; (b) Increasing the number of regulated flights allocated to Commercial Carriers at JWA from seventy-three (73) ADDs to (85) ADDs, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (c) Increasing the MAP level served at the Airport from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (d) Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by `Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of passengers served by Commuter Aircraft, Class E Aircraft and Class A Aircraft in regularly scheduled commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (e) Increasing the number of cargo flights from JWA from two (2) Class A ADD cargo flights to a total of four (4) Class A ADD cargo flights, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10 27 28 total of eighty-nine (89) Class A ADD flights, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; and (f) Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading bridges, through December 31, 2015. I1I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Amended Stipulation and the proposed Modified Final Judgment, the terms below are defined as follows: 14. "ADD" means "average daily departure," which is computed for purposes of the Plan on an annual basis, from April 1 of each year during which the Plan is in effect, to March 31 of the following year. One ADD authorizes any person requiring ADDS for its operations at JWA to operate 365 (or 366 in any "leap year") Authorized Departures during each Plan Year, subject to the definitions, provisions, conditions and limitations of this Amended Stipulation and implementing regulations of the County. "ADD" includes all Class A departures, except emergency or mercy flights, departures resulting from mechanical failures, emergency or weather diversions to JWA necessary to reposition an aircraft into its normal scheduling rotation, the repositioning of aircraft to another airport in connection with a published change in the previous schedule of operations of the airline, test or demonstration flights authorized in advance by the airport director, or charter flights by persons not engaged in regularly scheduled commercial service at JWA. 15. "Class A Aircraft" means aircraft which: (i) operate at gross takeoff weights at JWA not greater than the Maximum Permitted Gross Takeoff Weight for the .individual aircraft main landing gear configuration, as set forth in the text of Section 2.30 of the Phase 2 Access Plan, as STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED/ ORDER 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amended through July 1, 1999; and which (ii) generate actual energy averaged SENEL averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, as measured at the Departure Monitoring Stations, which are not greater than the values: NOISE MONITORING STATION ENERGY AVERAGED DECIBELS NMS1S: 101.8 dB SENEL NMS2S: 101.1 dB SENEL NMS3S: 100.7 dB SENEL NMS4S: 94.1 dB SENEL NMSSS: 94.6 dB SENEL NMS6S: 96.1 dB SENEL NMS7S: 93.0 dB SENEL In determining whether an aircraft is a Class A aircraft, its noise performance at the Departure Monitoring Stations shall be determined at each individual station, and the aircraft must meet each of the monitoring station criteria, without "trade-offs,' in order to qualify as a Class A aircraft. 16. "Class E Aircraft" means aircraft which: (i) operate at gross takeoff weights at JWA not greater than the Maximum Permitted Gross Takeoff Weight for the individual aircraft main landing gear configuration, as set forth in the text of Section 2.30 of the Phase 2 Access Plan, as amended through July 1, 1999; and which (ii) generate actual energy averaged SENEL levels, averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, as measured at the Departure Monitoring Stations, which are not greater than the values: NOISE MONITORING STATION NMSiS: NMS2S: NMS3S: NMS4S: NMSSS: NMS6S: NMS7S: ENERGY AVERAGED DECIBELS 93.5 dB SENEL 93.0 dB SENEL 89.7 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL 86.6 dB SENEL 86.6 dB SENEL 86.0 dB SENEL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER • E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In determining whether an aircraft is a Class E Aircraft, its noise performance at the Departure Monitoring Stations shall be determined at each individual noise monitoring station, and the aircraft must meet each of the noise monitoring station criteria, without "trade-offs," in order to qualify as a Class E Aircraft. 17. "Commercial Air Carrier" or "Air Carrier" means any person other than a Commuter Air Carrier or Commuter Cargo Carrier who operates Regularly Scheduled Air Service into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight, cargo, or for any other commercial purpose. For purposes of the Plan, Commercial Air Carrier includes all Commercial Cargo Carriers. 18. "Commercial Cargo Carrier" means any person which is an Air Carrier, but which conducts its operations at JWA solely for the purpose of carrying Commercial Cargo with aircraft regularly configured with zero (0) passenger seats available to the general public, and which does not offer passenger service to the public in connection with its operations at JWA. 19. "Commuter Air Carrier" or "Commuter Carrier" means any person who: (i) operates Regularly Scheduled Air Service into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight, cargo, or for any other commercial purpose; (ii) with Class E Aircraft regularly configured with fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats; and (iii) operating at gross take -off weights of not more than sixty thousand (60,000) pounds. For the purposes of the Plan, Commuter Air Carrier includes all Commuter Cargo Carriers. 20. "Commuter Cargo Carver" means any person which is a Commuter Air Carrier, but which conducts its operations at JWA solely for the purpose of carrying Commercial Cargo with aircraft regularly configured with zero (0) passenger seats available to the general public, and which does not offer passenger service to the public in connection with its operations at JWA. STIPULATIONAND (PROPOSED) ORDER 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1'1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. "Departure Monitoring Stations" means JWA noise monitoring stations NMS2S, NMS3S, NMS4S, NMS5S, NMS6S and NMS7S. 22. "EIR 582 Project" means the flight, passenger and gate increases and the facility improvements authorized by this Amended Stipulation together with the mitigation measures adopted by the Board pursuant to Resolution No. The Settling Parties agree that implementation of the EIR 582 Project may result in modifications to the Airport that are generally described in Exhibit 2-4 to EIR 582. The Settling Parties also agree that Exhibit 2-4 is only a conceptual plan and that further study by the County will likely require modifications to, or increases in, the areas depicted for commercial or cargo aircraft facilities or operations. 23. "MAP" means million annual passengers, consisting of the sum of actual deplaning and enplaning passengers served by all Commercial and Commuter Air Carriers at JWA during each Plan Year, except that it does not include passengers excluded from such calculations under relevant provisions of the Plan. 24. "Noise Compliance Period" means each calendar quarter during the Project 25. "Plan" means the Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation for John Wayne Airport, Orange County, and any successor regulations or amendments to the Plan. 26. "Plan Year" means each period during the Project Period, from April 1 of one year, to March 31 of the following year, except that the County shall have the discretion, beginning January 1, 2003, to redefine "Plan Year" as the calendar year (January 1 to December 31). 27. "Project Period" means the period from February 26,1985, to December 31, 2015. 28. "Regularly Scheduled Air Service" means all operations conducted by Regularly Scheduled Commercial Users at JWA. 29. "Regularly Scheduled Commercial User" means any person conducting aircraft operations at JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight or cargo where such (i) are operated in support of, advertised, or otherwise made available to members of the STIPULATIONAND(PROPOSEDJORDER 10 • 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 any means for commercial air transportation purposes, and members of the public may travel or ship Commercial Cargo on the flights; (ii) the flights are scheduled to occur, or are represented as occurring (or available) at specified times and days; and (iii) the person conducts, or proposes to operate, departures at JWA at a frequency greater than two (2) times per week during any consecutive three (3) week period. 30. "Regulated ADDS" means average daily departures by Class A aircraft operated by Commercial Air Carriers. Supplemental Class A Authorized Departures, as defined in Section 4.0 of the Phase 2 Access Plan, are also "Regulated" within the meaning of this section. 31. "RON" means any aircraft operated by a Qualified Air Carrier or Qualified Commuter Carver which "remains overnight" at JWA. IV. STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING JUDGMENT In recognition and consideration of the foregoing recitals and definitions, the Settling Parties agree to this Amended Stipulation and for a related and conforming Modified Final Judgment of the Court that contains the terms stated below. A. FLIGHT AND MAP LIMITS 32. Prior to December 31, 2002, there shall be a maximum of seventy-three (73) Commercial Air Carrier Class A and Class AA ADDS and two (2) Commercial Cargo Air Carrier Class A ADDs serving JWA. 33. No aircraft generating noise levels greater than that permitted for Class A aircraft shall be permitted to engage in Regularly Scheduled Air Service at JWA. 34. Prior to December 31, 2002, JWA shall serve no more than 8.4 MAP during any Plan Year. STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35. Beginning January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there shall maximum of eighty-five (85) Class A ADDS allocated to Regularly Scheduled Passenger Carriers. 36. In addition to, and beyond the eighty-five (85) Class A ADDS permitted under Paragraph 35 above, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there shall be a maximum of four (4) Commercial Cargo Class A ADDS permitted for Commercial Cargo Air Carriers for a combined total maximum of eighty-nine (89) Class A ADDS (commercial and cargo). 37. Beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, JWA shall serve no more than 9.8 MAP during any Plan Year. B. FACILITY CONSTRAINTS 38. Prior to December 31, 2002, there shall be a maximum of fourteen loading bridges in use at JWA. Each loading bridge may serve no more than one (1) flight time. 39. Beginning January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there may be a maximum of eighteen (18) loading bridges in use at JWA. Each loading bridge may serve no more than one (1) flight at a time. 40. During the term of this Amended Stipulation (through December 31, 2015), all air carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats shall load and unload passengers only through the loading bridges in use at JWA, except that: (a) Prior to January 1, 2006, air carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other means not involving the use of loading bridges (hardstands) as (i) the Airport Director reasonably deems neces to accommodate commercial aircraft operations authorized by AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 0 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended Stipulation, and (ii) only to the extent that the total of the loading bridges and the number of "hardstands" does not exceed eighteen (18); (b) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate commercial aircraft operations authorized by this Amended Stipulation during periods when construction and maintenance activities at or on the commercial terminal, terminal apron or proximate taxiways temporarily precludes or impairs the use of any loading bridges; (c) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate temporarily commercial aircraft operations authorized by this Amended Stipulation during any airport or airfield emergency condition which precludes or impairs the regular use of any loading bridges; and (d) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate commercial aircraft operations authorized by this Amended Stipulation during any period where compliance with safety or security directives of any federal agency with lawful jurisdiction over airport operations or activities [including, but not necessarily limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the Transportation Security Agency ("TSX )], imposes or adopts any safety or security directive STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or requirement affecting the airport which impairs the full effective utilization of the loading bridges at the airport. C. OTHER STIPULATED PROVISIONS 41. The existing curfew regulations and hours for JWA, contained in County Ordinance 3505, and the provisions of paragraph 4, at page 62, of Board of Supervisors' Resolution 85-255 (February 26, 1985), reducing the curfew exemption threshold to 86.0 dB SENEL, shall remain in effect for no less than five (5) years past the end of the Project Period. Nothing in this paragraph precludes or prevents the JWA Airport Director, his designated representative, or some other person designated by the Board, from exercising reasonable discretion in authorizing a regularly scheduled departure or landing during the curfew hours where: (1) such arrival or departure was scheduled to occur outside of the curfew hours; and (2) the arrival or departure has been delayed because of mechanical problems, weather or air traffic control delays, or other reasons beyond the control of the operator. In addition, this paragraph does prohibit authorization of bona fide emergency or mercy flights during the curfew hours by aircraft that would otherwise be regulated by the curfew provisions and limitations. 42, In mitigation of the EIR 508/E1S Project, and for other reasons, the County has adopted a "General Aviation Noise Ordinance" ("GANO") (County Ordinance 3505). One principal policy objective of the GANO is to exclude from operations at JWA general aviation aircraft that generate noise levels greater than the noise levels permitted for aircraft used by Commercial Air Carriers. During the Project Period, the County shall maintain in effect an, ordinance that meets this basic policy objective. Nothing in this Amended Stipulation precludes the County from amending the GANO to enhance or facilitate its reasonable achievement of its principal purpose, or the effective enforcement of its provisions. 0 STIP ULA TION A ND IMPOSED] ORDER • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. During the Project Period, the City, SPON, AWG, their agents, attorneys, officers, elected officials and employees agree that they will not challenge, impede or contest, by or in connection with litigation, or any adjudicatory administrative proceedings, or other action, the funding, implementation or operation of the EIR 582 Project, or any facilities that are reasonably related to implementation of the EIR 582 Project at JWA, by the County and the United States; nor I will they urge other persons to do so, or cooperate in any such efforts by other parties except as I may be expressly required by law. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the Settling Parties from submitting comments or presenting testimony regarding any future environmental documentation prepared by the County with respect to implementation of the EIR 582 Project. 44. The Settling Parties recognize that it is in the best interests of each of them and in furtherance of the interests, health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Orange County that any potential disputes, controversies or claims with respect to the growth and expansion of JWA through the Project Period be resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amended Stipulation and the Modified Final Judgment. This Amended Stipulation does not constitute an admission of the sufficiency or insufficiency of any claims, allegations, assertions, contentions or positions of any other party, or the sufficiency or insufficiency of the defenses of any such claims, allegations, contentions or positions. 45. Upon execution of this Amended Stipulation, the Settling Parties, their agents, officers, directors, elected officials and employees each agree to release, acquit and forever discharge each other, their heirs, employees, officials, directors, supervisors, consultants and successors -in -interest from any and all claims, actions, lawsuits, causes of action, liabilities, demands, damages, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which may arise from or concern the subject matter of this Amended Stipulation, including, but not limited to, the legal adequacy of EIR 582, the legal adequacy of the terms and conditions for the modification of the 1985 Settlement STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED) ORDER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Agreement and confirming judgment, and/or the legal adequacy of any of the amendments to 11 Plan through the Project Period. Nothing in this release shall limit in any way the ability of any Settling Party to enforce the terms, conditions and provisions of this Amended Stipulation and the Modified Final Judgment. 46. All Settling Parties to this Amended Stipulation specifically acknowledge that they have been informed by their legal counsel of the provisions of section 1542 of the CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, and they expressly waive and relinquish any rights or benefits available to them under this statute, except as provided in this Amended Stipulation. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1542 provides: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. Notwithstanding section 1542 of the CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, or any statute or rule of law of similar effect, this Amended Stipulation shall be given its full force and effect according to each and all of its express terms and provisions, including those related to any unknown or unsuspected claims, liabilities, demands or causes of action. All parties to this Amended Stipulation have been advised specifically by their legal counsel of the effect of this waiver, and they expressly acknowledge that they understand the significance and consequence of this express waiver of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1542. This waiver is not amere recital, but rather forms a material part of the consideration for this Amended Stipulation. 47. During the Project Period, the Settling Parties agree that they will jointly defend, using their best efforts, any pending or future litigation, administrative investigation, administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement action or claim against the County related to, or arising from, this Amended Stipulation, or the agreement(s) embodied in STIPULATIONAND (PROPOSED) ORDER E 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended Stipulation, the EIR 582 Project at JWA, or the County's regulations or actions in implementation of, or enforcing limitations upon, the Project. If SPON does not have adequate funds to retain legal counsel, SPON shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if SPON cooperates with the other Settling Parties in the litigation or administrative proceeding if, and to the extent, requested by the other Settling Parties. 48. During the Project Period, the City (but not SPON or AWG) agrees that it will, at its own expense, reimburse the County for all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the County in defending any pending or future litigation, administrative investigation, administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement action or claim against the County related to, or arising from, this Amended Stipulation or the agreement embodied in this Amended Stipulation, the EIR 582 Project, any facilities generally consistent with, and reasonably related to, implementation of the EIR 582 Project at JWA, or the County's regulations or actions in implementation of, or enforcing limitations upon, the Project. The City's obligations pursuant to this paragraph do not extend to any litigation or enforcement action initiated against the County by any other Settling Party alleging a breach by the County of this Amended Stipulation. Reasonable costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of retaining experts or consultants to provide legal counsel, the costs of preparing documents for introduction in any litigation, administrative investigation, administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement action or claim, or to assist legal counsel, the costs of reproducing any document, and reasonable expenses such as transportation, meals, lodging and communication incurred in attending meetings or proceedings related to litigation or administrative proceedings. The County shall be obligated to defend, using its best efforts, any litigation, administrative challenge or enforcement proceeding related to this Amended Stipulation. In recognition of the County's obligation to defend using its best efforts, the County shall have full discretion to select counsel, experts or other professionals to represent or STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 advise it in respect of any such matters. The City shall reimburse the County for all reasonal litigation or administrative attorneys' fees or costs within thirty (30) days after an invoice is submitted to the City for reimbursement. The rights acid obligations set forth in this paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this Amended Stipulation. 49. The Settling Parties acknowledge that the County intends, in the near future, to develop amendments to the current Plan and/or other airport regulations relative, among other issues, to the manner in which the County allocates Class A ADDS and exempt aircraft operating opportunities within the MAP level agreed to in this Amended Stipulation. The development and implementation of amendments to the Plan was contemplated by, and is considered an element of, all of the Scenarios evaluated in EIR 582, and the parties agree that no additional or $other environmental documentation is required under CEQA or NEPA to allow the County to develop or implement the amendments. ,M 50. Any notices given under this Amended Stipulation shall be addressed to parties as follows: FOR THE COUNTY: Richard Oviedo Deputy County Counsel John Wayne Airport 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 with a copy to: Michael Scott Gatzke Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP 1921 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR THE CITY: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 FOR SPON: Roy B. Woolsey 113 Via Venezia Newport Beach, CA 92663-5516 STIPULATION AND (PROPOSEDI ORDER 0 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOR AWG: Barbara E. Lichman Chevalier, Allen & Lichman 2603 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92714 Any parry may, at any time during the Project Period, change the person designated to receive notices under this Amended Stipulation by giving written notice of the change to the other parties. V. ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT 51. If a dispute arises concerning the interpretation of, or a Settling Party's compliance with, the Modified Final Judgment, and if no exigent circumstances require immediate court proceedings, any Settling Party interested in the interpretation or compliance shall provide written notice of the dispute to the other Settling Parties. Within twenty-one (21) days of the sending of such notice, the parties shall meet in person (or by their authorized representatives) and attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute. 52. If a dispute has not been resolved within thirty-five (35) days after the sending of written notice, or if exigent circumstances require immediate court proceedings, any Settling Party may initiate enforcement proceedings in this action. A Settling Party seeking to compel another Settling Party to obey the Modified Final Judgment must file a Motion to Enforce Judgment. The Settling Parties agree not to resort to, request, or initiate proceedings involving the contempt powers of the Court in connection with a Motion to Enforce Judgment. 53. If the Court determines that a Settling Party is not complying with the Modified Final Judgment, the Court shall issue an order, in the nature of specific performance of the Modified Final Judgment, requiring the defaulting party to comply with the Modified Final Judgment within a reasonable period of time. If the defaulting party fails to comply with the order, any other Settling Party may then seek enforcement under any authorized processes of the Court. STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 r-2I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI. TERM OF AGREEMENT 54. This Amended Stipulation is contingent upon the Court's entry of the Final Judgment such that the obligations, duties and rights of the parties are only those that are contained within this Amended Stipulation amending the terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement. If the Modified Final Judgment is not entered, this Amended Stipulation shall be null and void, and shall not be admissible for any purpose. Unless the Modified Final Judgment is vacated at an earlier date in the manner described in paragraphs 55 through 60, this Amended Stipulation and Modified Final Judgment shall remain in full force and effect during the Project Period. 55. The City, SPON and/or AWG may, after consultation with one another, file a Motion to Vacate Judgment if, in any action that they have not initiated: (a) Any trial court enters a final judgment that determines that the limits on number of: (i) Regulated Class A ADDs; (ii) MAP levels; or (iii) facilities improvements contained in this Amended Stipulation or the curfew provisions of paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation are unenforceable for any reason, and any of these stipulated limitations are exceeded; (b) Any trial court issues a preliminary injunction that has the effect of precluding implementation or enforcement of the limits on the number of Regulated Class A ADDs, MAP levels or facilities improvements contained in this Amended Stipulation or the curfew provisions of paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation based upon a finding of a probability of making at trial any of the determinations described ' subparagraph (a) above, and such preliminary injunction remains in effect STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED) ORDER E • J. 1 2 3 4 5' 61 71 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for a period of one (1) year or more, and any of these stipulated limitations are exceeded; or (c) Any appellate court issues a decision or order that makes any of the determinations described in subparagraphs (a) or (b) above, or affirms a trial court ruling based upon such a determination, and any of these stipulated limitations are exceeded. 56. The County may file a Motion to Vacate Judgment if. (a) The City, SPON or AWG fail to comply with the provisions of paragraph 43 of this Amended Stipulation; (b) A trial or appellate court issues an order that has the effect of prohibiting the County from implementing or enforcing any of the operational restrictions or facilities limitations required by this Amended Stipulation; or (c) The FAA, or any successor agency, withholds federal grant funds from the County, or declines to permit the County to impose or use passenger facility charges at JWA based on a determination by the FAA that the adoption or implementation of all or a portion of this Amended Stipulation is illegal or unconstitutional as a matter of federal law, and (i) the FAA has issued an order or other determination to that effect which is subject to judicial review; and (ii) the County has, using reasonable efforts, been unable to secure a judicial order overruling or vacating the FAA order or other determination. This provision shall not apply to activities expressly permitted by paragraph 43 of this Amended Stipulation. STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 57. Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Court after consideration of a motion to vacate judgment, enter an order vacating the Modified Final Judgment if the Court determines that any of the conditions described in paragraphs 55 or 56 have occurred. Once vacated, the Modified Final Judgment and this Amended Stipulation shall be null and void, unenforceable and inadmissible for any purpose, and the Settling Parties will, pursuant to paragraph 58, be deemed to be in the same position that they occupied before the Modified Final Judgment and this Amended Stipulation were executed and approved, and the Settling Parties shall have the full scope of their legislative and administrative prerogatives. 58. If the Modified Final Judgment is vacated before December 31, 2005, the Settling Parties agree that the original 1985 Settlement Agreement, the original Confirming Judgment and the seven (7) subsequent amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement shall remain in full force and effect through December 31, 2005, if, for any reason, all or a portion of this Amen* Stipulation is determined to be invalid and the Modified Final Judgment is vacated. 59. For the period after December 31, 2005, if any of the events described in paragraphs 55 or 56 occur during the Project Period, this Amended Stipulation and the Modified Final Judgment shall remain in full force and effect with respect to those terms and conditions or portions thereof that are not affected by the event(s) unless the court has granted a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to paragraphs 55 and 56. VII. MODIFICATION 60. The limitations on Regulated Class A ADDs, MAP levels and facilities provided for in this Amended Stipulation, the provisions of paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation, and the agreements of the City, SPON and AWG not to contest or impede implementation of EIR 582 Project (paragraph 43 of this Amended Stipulation), are fundamental and essential STIPULATIONAND IMPOSED] ORDER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of this Amended Stipulation, and were agreed upon with full recognition of the possibility that economic, demographic, technological, operational or legal changes not currently contemplated could occur during the Project Period. It was in recognition of these essential aspects of this Amended Stipulation, and the inability to accurately predict certain future conditions that the Settling Parties have agreed to the specific and express provisions of paragraph 55 of this Amended Stipulation. The Settling Parties further acknowledge that this Amended Stipulation provides for the Settling Parties to perform undertakings at different times, and that the performance of certain of the undertakings, once accomplished, could not be undone. Accordingly, except as provided herein, the Settling Parties expressly waive any potential right to seek to modify or vacate the terms of this Amended Stipulation or the Modified Final Judgment, except by written mutual agreement. Dated: Date: Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendants, the County of Orange and the Orange County Board of Supervisors Michael Scott Gatzke Lori D. Ballance Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP Lori D. Ballance County Counsel, County of Orange By: Richard Oviedo Deputy County Counsel STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and Crossdefendant, the City ofNewport Beach Robert1l. Burnham City Attorney of Newport Beach Dated: By: Dated: Robert H. Burnham Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and Crossdefendant, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) Roy B. Woolsey Roy B. Woolsey Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and Crossdefendant, Airport Working Group (AWG) Barbara E. Lichman Chevalier, Allen & Lichman Dated: By: Barbara E. Lichman STIPULATIONAND (PROPOSED) ORDER 0 • C� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT 1. In 1985, the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and the Airport Working Group ("Settling Parties") entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment by Certain Settling Parties, settling all pending actions and claims related to the 1985 Master Plan of John Wayne Airport ("JWA") and related actions ("the 1985 Settlement Agreement'). On December 13, 1985, this Court entered Final Judgment on Stipulation for Entry of Judgment by Certain Settling Parties which accepted the stipulation of the Settling Parties and incorporated certain portions of their stipulation into that judgment. The principal terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement relate to restrictions and limitations on aircraft operations and commercial passenger facilities. 2. In the intervening years, by stipulations of the Settling Parties, orders of the Court have been entered to reflect certain modifications in the agreement of the Settling Parties which were contained in stipulations presented to and approved by the Court. None of these modifications further restricted operations or facilities as compared to the 1985 Settlement Agreement. 3. The Settling Parties have now presented to the Court an Eighth Supplemental Stipulation by the County of Orange, California, the City of Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc., Amending the Terms and Conditions of the Previous Stipulations of those Parties ("Amended Stipulation") and Requesting a Modification of an Executory Judgment of the Court and [Proposed] Order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: A. The Amended Stipulation contains many of the terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement and the seven (7) previous stipulations of the Settling Parties and for clarity and ease of reference, the Amended Stipulation is deemed to contain all of the agreements and obligations of the Settling Parties. STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER i B. The provisions of paragraphs 93 through 42 and 51 through 59 of the Amen 2 Stipulation are hereby incorporated as part of this Modified Final Judgment. 3 C. The Settling Parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys' fees in connection 4 with the entry of this Modified Final Judgment. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: 2002 10 The Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr. 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL The County of Orange ("County"), the City of Newport Beach ("City"), the Airport Working Group ("AWG") and Stop Polluting our Newport ("SPON") are considering amendments to the 1985 JWA Settlement Agreement. These amendments contemplate an increase in the number of noise regulated average daily departures (ADD), permitted passenger service levels and passenger loading bridges beyond the levels specified in the 1985 Settlement Agreement and an extension of the term of the agreement to December 31, 2015 (Amended Stipulation). As part of the implementation of the Amended Stipulation, the parties recognize that it is and will be desirable to discuss the Amended Stipulation and its implementation with various federal officials, airport users and other interested parties in order to maximize the opportunities for effective - implementation of the proposed capacity increases, including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, members of Congress, the Air Transport Association, the Air Cargo Association, and commercial passenger and cargo air carriers (Interested Persons). The purpose of this Protocol is to confirm the general procedures the parties will follow to allow them to work cooperatively together in this effort. Successful implementation of the Amended Stipulation will be significantly enhanced if they communicate effectively with each other, and with interested or relevant third parties, regarding implementation issues. In addition, the City, SPON and AWG each have legitimate interests in monitoring the implementation process and providing input and assistance to the County regarding the strategy of implementation; both in the initial phases of implementation and as implementation issues arise during the course of the implementation process. A cooperative implementation approach supported by candid and effective communication between the parties also will facilitate the ability of each party to ensure that it and its constituencies realize the full benefits for which they have negotiated in arriving at the final terms of the Amended Stipulation. Nothing in this Protocol, however, is intended to interfere with, constrain or assign the customary proprietary prerogatives of the County as the proprietor of John Wayne Airport regarding the implementation actions it needs to take in order to meet its obligations under the Amended Stipulation. It is the mutual goal of the parties to successfully implement the Amended Stipulation with a minimum risk of litigation or quasi-adjudicatory administrative proceedings. PROTOCOL 1. Each party shall each designate a representative, and notify the other parties of that party's designated representative(s). The representatives shall be responsible for coordinating meetings and communicating relevant information to the other parties ("staff coordinating committee" or "SCC"). The SCC shall meet at a fixed time and no less frequently than every two weeks. 2. At each meeting of the SCC, each of the parties representative(s) will advise the other parties of substance of their communications with third parties on implementation issues, including EXHIBIT C - communications with federal elected, legislative or administrative officials regarding the Amended Stipulation or any issue related to implementation of the Amended Stipulation. Each parry shall, at each SCC meeting: (a) identify any third party meetings or other third party communications they intend to, or have scheduled since the last meeting of the SCC; (b) communicate to the other parties the results of any previously scheduled third party meetings or other third party communications which have been held since the last meeting of the SCC; and (c) consistent with the mutual goals of the parties expressed in this protocol, consider in good faith the input of each of the other parties regarding the ongoing implementation strategy(s) of the parties. 3. The parties agree that, subsequent to June 25, 2002, meetings will be held with the FAA, ATA and selected members of Congress as frequently as necessary to achieve the mutual goals ofthe parties. 4. After June 25, 2002, the parties, collectively or individually, will, meetwith the FAA, ATA, selected members of Congress and other potentially Interested Persons on any issues concerning the implementation or continued enforcement of the Amended Stipulation as they deem to be necessary or advantageous to the implementation of the Amended Stipulation, S. The parties may retain consultants and lobbyists, as they deem appropriate, to assist in the presentation to and discussion of issues with Interested Persons. However, for purposes of this protocol, any communication by any such lobbyist or consultant with any thirdparty shall be deemed to be a communication of the party. 6. This protocol shall remain in effect until the parties achieve their mutual goals or through December 31, 2003, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise extended by mutual consent of the parties. SIGNATURE Airport Director, John Wayne Airport City Manager, City of Newport Beach Executive Director, AWG SPON is CEQA FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS . AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 582 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), (Public Resources Code § 21081) and the CEQA Guidelines ("the Guidelines") (Guidelines §§ 15091) provide that no public agency, including a responsible agency, may approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects of the project on the environment unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment ("Finding 1"). (2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency ("Finding 2"). (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including . considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report ("Finding 3"). For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. In addition, CEQA requires a public agency to make a finding that the EIR reflects the public agency's independent review and judgement. in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach City Council ("Council") expressly finds that it has independently reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report, Final EIR 582 (SCH No. 20010111068), for the John Wayne Airport ("JWA") Settlement Agreement Amendment ("Amended Stipulation") and that the final EIR is a full and complete disclosure of the environmental impacts of the scenarios analyzed. These findings are to reflect the City's independent review of the record, and its independent judgment. Final EIR 582 identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, prior to and after mitigation, that may occur as a result of approval of the Proposed Project and approval and execution of the Amended Stipulation. Orange County, as the lead agency under CEQA and under the terms of a May 22, 2001 MOU between the County and the City, found EIR 582 adequate and complete under CEQA on February 26, 2002, and adopted a formal certification • resolution on June 25, 2002. in deciding whether to approve the Amended Stipulation, the City has considered the EIR as prepared jointly by the County and the City and certified by the EXHIBIT D County. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Council adopts these Findings as part of its approval of the Amended Stipulation. In conjunction with its adoption of these Findings, the Council has reviewed and considered a substantial amount of material, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Draft EIR 582 and all appendices and technical reports thereto; b. Comments and Responses to Comments on Draft EIR 582, including a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting; C. Transmittal packages to the Orange County Airport Commission dated February 6, and June 5, 2002; d. Minutes of the Orange County Airport Commission meetings held February 6, and June 5, 2002; e. Staff Reports to the Orange County Planning Commission dated February 13, and June 5, 2002; f. Minutes of the Orange County Planning Commission meetings held on February 13, and June 5, 2002; g. Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 02-01 and 02-05, adopted on February 13, and June 5, 2002, respectively; . h. Letter from Supervisor Silva to the Board of Supervisors dated February 26, 2002 and the AIT to the Board of Supervisors for the June 25, 2002, public meeting on Final EIR 582; 1. Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors public meetings held on February 26, and June 25, 2002; j. Public testimony provided at the Board of Supervisors public meetings held on February 26, and June 25, 2002; k. Staff report to the Board of'Supervisors dated June 25, 2002; I. Board of Supervisors' Resolutions relating to the Proposed Project and Final EIR 582, including all attachments thereto; M. Report to City Council from JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee, dated June 25, 2002; and n. All attachments and documents incorporated by reference identified in items a. through m. above. 2 1.2 Organization/Format of Findings • In compliance with the statutory requirements, the Findings are organized as follows: (1) Significant effects that cannot be mitigated to below the level of significance; (2) Effects that were determined to have been mitigated to below a level of significance; (3) Effects found not to be significant; (4) Significant cumulative effects; (5) Cumulative effects determined not to be significant; (6) Feasibility of project alternatives; (7) Mitigation measures considered but not proposed for adoption; and, (8) Statement of Overriding Considerations. Each of these categories is accompanied by a discussion of significant effects, mitigation measures relevant to the specific effects being considered, Findings, and facts in support of those Findings. • 1.3 Program Level EIR EIR 582 was prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Program EIR "...may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or • (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways." The Amended Stipulation may lead to facility improvements at JWA. EIR 582 evaluated the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Proposed Project, but is not a construction - level document. Subsequent environmental documentation is required to address the construction impacts associated with any facility improvements prior to implementation. 1.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan As required by Public Resources Code §21081.6, the County has adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). The Council has reviewed the County's MMRP and has independently determined that it will assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The City will not adopt an MMRP because there are no additional mitigation • measures with the City's power. 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL 2.1 Introductloh is In early 1985, in response to the need for additional airline service In the County, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a Master Plan for facility improvements ("the 1985 Master Plan"), an airline access plan, and an associated Land Use Compatibility plan. The 1985 Master Plan allowed for the construction of the existing terminal facilities. Following adoption of the 1985 Master Plan and the certification of Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 508 ("EIS/EIR 508% litigation related to the 1985 Master Plan and EIR 508 was initiated by the County in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and by the City and two citizens groups, SPON and AWG, in the Orange County Superior Court. in addition, in April 1985, there was then pending in the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, an appeal by the County from an earlier trial court ruling made under CEQA in respect to an earlier Master Plan for JWA adopted by the County in 1981 and the related EIR ("EIR 232"). In November 1985, the County, the City, SPON, and AWG reached a comprehensive agreement settling all pending actions and claims related to the 1985 Master Plan and EIS/EIR 50B, and the pending appeal in the 1981 Master Plan/EIR 232 litigation. This agreement documented a series of stipulations, signed and filed in the various courts in which those actions were then pending ("the 1985 Settlement Agreement"). The 1985 Settlement Agreement was filed in the federal court action initiated by the County in respect of the 1985 Master Plan and EIS/EIR 508, and after hearing, was accepted and confirmed by a final order of the District Court, in December 1985. The parties have continued to Implement the 1985 Settlement Agreement, as amended from time to time, since the final order of the District Court it was entered. The 1985 Settlement Agreement required certain modifications to various mitigation measure restrictions originally adopted by the County at the time it certified EIR 508. Those modifications were, among other steps, adopted by a subsequent resolution of the Board amending the original certification and related resolutions adopted by the Board in April 1985 in adopting the 1985 Master Plan and certifying EIR 508. With adoption of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the new 337,900-square foot Thomas F. Riley Terminal was built and opened to the public in 1990, Since 1985, the settling parties have executed various stipulations making minor mod cations to the 1985 Settlement Agreement. One group of these subsequent stipulations has resulted in the approval, since 1995, of the County's ability to allocate two (2) Class A Average Daily Departures ("ADDs")' to commercial cargo carriers above the Class A ADD levels originally agreed to In the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The other group of subsequent stipulations have modified maximum permitted single event noise limits at various monitor station locations to recognize and accommodate changes in the location of specific monitoring stations, the Installation and use of new noise monitoring equipment, and/or the establishment of uniform noise abatement departure procedures as specified in FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A. ' The ADDs at JWA are currently divided Into three "classes' based on the noise characteristics of the aircraft on departure. The Class A flights are the noisiest. The criteria for each of the classes of aircraft are provided in Final EIR 582. 4 In the fall of 2000 the City requested that the County join it in considering amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement to extend its term beyond 2005. On December 5, 2000, the Board, by a unanimous vote, directed the County Executive Officer ("CEO") to work with the City to study the potential of extending certain restrictions at JWA beyond December 31, 2005. On May 22, 2001, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the County and the City pursuant to which the County would act as lead agency (with the City designated a responsible agency) in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") that would support County and City approval of one of the various project case scenarios identified in the EIR regarding amendments to the terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement concerning restrictions at JWA. This EIR was designated as EIR 582 and was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to, and consistent with, CEQA and CEQA GUIDELINE requirements. Final EIR 582 was found complete and adequate under CEQA by the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 2002. On February 26, 2002, the Board also approved Scenario 1, as defined in EIR 582, and as modified by the Board to include four (4) Commercial Cargo Class A ADDs. Finally, the Board provided direction to the County Executive Officer and Airport Director to negotiate proposed amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement with the City, SPON and AWG within the framework of Scenario 1, as amended, and return to the Board for consideration of the Amended Stipulation amending the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The option of four (4) ADDs • for cargo operations was addressed in Final EIR 582 as a component of Scenarios 2 and 3. 2.2 Description of the Project The Proposed Project and implementing Amended Stipulation continues the essential terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement regarding the development and operation of JWA, with certain modifications, including: Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class A flights and eliminating Class AA Aircraft definition/distinction, effective upon execution of the Modified Final Judgment by the Court. The definition/distinction for Class E Aircraft is preserved unaffected. Authorizing an increase in the number of regulated flights allocated to passenger commercial carriers at JWA from seventy-three (73) ADDs to eighty-five (85) ADDs, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Authorizing an increase in the million annual passengers ("MAP") level served at JWA from the 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of passengers served by Commuter Aircraft, Class E Aircraft and Class A Aircraft in regularly scheduled commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Authorizing an increase in the number of cargo flights from two (2) Class A ADD to four (4) Class A ADD cargo flights, for a combined total of eighty-nine (89) Class A ADDS (commercial and cargo flights), beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Authorizing an increase in the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from the current fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading bridges through December 31, 2015. 2.3 Project Purposes and Objectives The purpose of the project is to outline the parameters for the operations and facilities at JWA. The extension and modifications of provisions of the existing 1985 Settlement Agreement will provide for an orderly transition beyond the existing terms of the agreement. The project goals of the City are: To modify some existing restrictions on aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport to provide Increased air transportation opportunities to the air traveling public using the airport without adversely affecting safety. 2. To protect the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA, including their concerns regarding "quality of life" issues relating to the operation of JWA. 3. To preserve and continue to implement important restrictions on the use of JWA, "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which reflect and accommodate historical policy decisions of the Orange County Board of Supervisors regarding the appropriate point of balance between the competing Interests of the air transportation and aviation community and local residents living in the vicinity of the airport. These include the existing nighttime operations restrictions and maximum permitted single -event noise levels. 4. To provide a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport users (particularly scheduled commercial users) and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future period of time. 5. To consider some possible revisions to the regulatory operational restrictions at JWA In light of current circumstances, end the current needs of the affected communities and the industry interests represented at JWA. 0 11 3.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE The following section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project, as approved, and with respect to each effect, identifies one or more of the required findings, states facts in support of those findings and, as appropriate, refers to the Council's Statement of Overriding Considerations (See Section 9, below). 3.1 Air Quality 3.1.1 Significant Effects. There are significant adverse air quality impacts of the Proposed Project as summarized below: Short -Term Construction Related Impacts - Though the EIR does not address any specific construction projects, it acknowledges that the Proposed Project might eventually result in improvements to the passenger terminal and other related facilities at JWA. Construction - related impacts could result from fugitive dust (particulate matter) and construction equipment emissions. Construction emissions that would be generated include construction workers traveling to and from the site, transport of materials to the site, construction equipment, and fugitive dust. Gaseous emissions would occur from heavy-duty construction equipment and vehicle travel to and from the site by construction workers. Fugitive dust emissions would be generated from demolition, grading, hauling/transport, excavation, dumping/reclamation, and other soil disturbance activities. Gaseous emissions (CO, ROC, NO,,, and SOO may exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") construction thresholds due to construction equipment and worker vehicles. Emissions cannot be quantified because of a lack of a specific improvement plan; however, based on findings in previous studies, these emissions may exceed SCAQMD's construction thresholds. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-4 through AQ-7, AQ-10, AQ-12, AQ-14, AQ-15, AQ-17 and AQ-18 proposed in the EIR relate to possible future specific construction activities that might ultimately be proposed for study if the Proposed Project is implemented, but which are not part of the Proposed Project in EIR 582. Since the construction related emissions are not directly related to the Proposed Project, the County has determined that these mitigation measures, as well as potentially others, will be considered and evaluated for adoption if and when specific facility improvements are proposed and the necessary environmental analysis for any such improvements is prepared. Therefore, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-4 through AQ-7, AQ-10, AQ-12, AQ-14, AQ-15, AQ-17 and AQ-18 are not currently being adopted. Long -Term Operational Emissions - The Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with increased operations at JWA. The emissions of CO and NO, from aircraft operations would exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The vehicular emissions associated with the Proposed Project would exceed state 1-hour standards for NO and 24-hour standards for PM10. The violations of NO, and PM10 standards would be Inconsistent with the adopted Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-8, AQ-9, AQ-11, AQ-13, AQ-16, and AQ-19 through AQ-22 have been proposed and adopted by the County to reduce the significant operational air quality impacts. Nevertheless, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, the significant operational air quality impacts for CO, NO,,, and PM10 cannot be mitigated to below a level of 0 significance for the Proposed Project. 3.1.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3. 3.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that is the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible. The air quality impacts remain significant and unmitigable even though the County incorporated changes and alterations Into the design of the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined that the significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations. The mitigation measures below have been adopted and Incorporated by the County as part of the project to minimize the air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project. AQ-3 The County of Orange shall require the following mitigation measures applicable to alternative fuels: For airport owned and operated (directly or by contract) vehicles, the County shall require County owned airport support vehicles to use conventional or alternative fueled vehicles that achieve exhaust emissions equivalent to a SULEV or better for new vehicles purchased by John Wayne Airport, with the exception of emergency vehicles operated by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies; fire departments; or to paramedic and rescue vehicles; or heavy-duty on -road vehicles. The type of alternative fuel vehicles selected shall reflect the appropriate power technology available at the time of vehicle acquisition. The County shall require third party vehicles (such as shuttles, trucks and vans) using terminal areas to use low emission alternative fuels (comparable to SULEV emissions or better) and will provide reasonably necessary facilities to fuel these vehicles where these facilities are not locally available. The County shall provide preferential parking for alternative fueled vehicles in connection with the Proposed Project sufficient to encourage the Increased use of alternative fuel vehicles in the fleet mix for the Basin. The County shall include in its bid proposals for rental vehicles and taxicab services in connection with operations of the Proposed Project a provision that requires the use of conventional or alternative fueled vehicles at the airport that achieve emissions equivalent to a SULEV or better, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1194. The County shall use incentives to encourage the use of alternative fueled rental cars using on -airport RAC facilities. The County shall use incentives to encourage the use of alternative fueled vehicles or engines in commercial vehicles using the terminal areas, in cargo vehicles entering the airport, The County shall require all leaseholders with diesel vehicles in their fleets to commit to 90 percent clean diesel fueled vehicles. The County shall also require that diesel fueled delivery and service 0 trucks coming to the site to serve leaseholders be clean diesel fueled. Clean diesel fueled vehicles are those that comply with the final federal rule regarding on -road diesel emissions issued in December, 2000, 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86. The County shall encourage an average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.5 passengers for project employees, ensure that employees for both the airport and non -aviation land uses are provided information on carpooling and mass transit systems in an effort to increase the average vehicle ridership (AVR) and reduce traffic congestion and air pollutant emissions; and make available to the public information on mass transit systems through the use of signage, pamphlets, information kiosks, or the County's website to promote the usage of mass transit and reduce traffic congestion as well as air and noise pollution. The County of Orange shall implement a program to track compliance with alternative fuel measures for airport shuttles and taxis. AQ-8 The County of Orange shall advise tenant airlines in writing that the County supports the use of single or reduced engine taxiing to the extent that it would provide identifiable air quality benefits to the local community and the region, and if and to the extent, that it is determined by the FAA and the airlines to be a safe and efficient operational procedure for air carrier aircraft at JWA. This measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FAA and airlines. AQ-9 The County of Orange shall continue its program for the use or conversion of ground support equipment (GSE) to electric power. This program shall' result in the use or conversion of at least 64 percent of GSE to electric power by 2010. AQ-11The County of Orange shall use energy efficient low pressure sodium parking lot lights. AQ-13 The County shall promote the use of clean -fueled cargo vehicles through on - airport access pricing at cargo facilities for clean fuel trucks (CNG, LNG) when an airport cargo handling facility is constructed by the County. AQ-16 The County of Orange shall continue to provide for on -site employee services such as food services, financial services, etc. AQ-19 The County shall continue to support public agency provisions to establish airport shuttle bus services from significant trip origin locations in the region. AQ-20 The County shall continue to manage curbside drop-off by controlling traffic flows for passengers to use shuttle van services. AQ-21 The County shall continue to use clear signing and information systems on roadways to direct traffic through airport. AQ-22 The County shall require that contractors and concessionaires implement a procedure where they post routing bus schedules to encourage use of public transportation by their employees instead of having them drive to work at JWA. The County will provide links to bus and train schedules on their website. Mitigation Measure AQ-8 is within the jurisdiction and control, in whole or part, of public agencies or entities other than the County of Orange. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not relied upon to determine significance of adverse impacts after mitigation. Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-13, and AQ-22, as adopted, revise Draft EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-13, and AQ-22 to clarify the County's responsibilities in connection with each of these mitigation measures. The City finds that the County has adopted the Mitigation Measures listed above, that all the adopted Mitigation Measures are outside the scope of the City's jurisdiction and that the City has not identified any feasible air quality mitigation within its jurisdiction for this project. 3.2 Toxic Air Contaminants 3.2.1 Significant Effect. There are significant adverse toxic air contaminant impacts of the Proposed Project. The evaluation of the worst -plausible lifetime cancer risks associated with the Proposed Project identified a significant lifetime cancer risk to all maximally exposed individuals (MEI) receptor ►ocations. The Proposed Project would also result in a significant acute health hazard impacts at all receptors. 3.2.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3. 3.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible. Although changes and alterations were incorporated by the County into project design of the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects, the toxic air contaminants impacts remain significant and unmitigabie. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below the level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined that the significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations. The following toxic air contaminant impact mitigation measures have been adopted and incorporated by the County as part of the project to minimize the toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. TAC-1 The County of Orange shall continue Its program for the use or conversion of ground support equipment (GSE) to electric power. This program shall result in the use or conversion of at least 64 percent of GSE to electric power by 2010, TAC-2 The County shall require that all light/medium/heavy diesel vehicles transporting cargo or Jet A fuel on JWA be in compliance with the new EPA and CARB rules for reducing diesel PM10 from exhaust. A reduction of 80 percent of diesel exhaust PM10 from these sources is assumed with this measure. These adopted Mitigation Measures are outside the scope of the City's jurisdiction and the City has not identified any feasible toxic air contaminant mitigation measures within its jurisdiction for this project. 3.3 Transportation 3.3.1 Significant Effect. When compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would result in significant transportation impacts at four freeway (Interstate/State Route) ramp locations. it is noted, however, that each of the freeway ramp locations significantly impacted by the Proposed Project operates at deficient levels of service (Level of Service "F") under existing conditions without the project. Accordingly, the project's responsibility for mitigation at 10 • these locations consists of participation in the implementation of future improvements on a fair - share basis. With implementation of mitigation measure T-2, the identified impacts to freeway ramps would be reduced to a level below significant. Mitigation measure T-2 is within the jurisdiction, in whole or in part, of the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"). Caltrans has notified the County that certain freeway improvement programs administered by Caltrans are currently not funded and, therefore, these improvement programs should not be relied upon as mitigation for congestion impacts due to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, in the event the proposed T-2 ramp improvements are not implemented prior to initiation of the flight and MAP levels identified for the Proposed Project, the identified freeway ramp impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS WITH POTENTIAL UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 1405 at MacArthur: NB On -Ramp Caltrans 1405 at MacArthur: SB On -Ramp Caltrans 1405 at MacArthur. NB Off -Ramp Caltrans SR-73 at Campus/Irvine: NB On -Ramp Caltrans The two additional daily cargo flights which would occur under the Proposed Project are expected to generate approximately 186 daily trips, which represents an increase of approximately 0.3 percent in the Proposed Project's total trip generation from that when anticipated scenario in the EIR. This limited increased in daily vehicle trips attributable to two additional daily cargo flights would not affect the results of the traffic analysis presented in the EIR. Additionally, the initiation of increased MAP levels as of January 1, 2003, as compared to a later date, does not alter the conclusions of the traffic analysis; the EIR traffic analysis assumes ultimate MAP levels at the outset of the Proposed Project. 3.3.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3. 3.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts and mitigation measure indicate that the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible. Although changes and alterations were incorporated into project design of the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects, the transportation impacts for freeway ramps remain significant and unmitigable. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined that the significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations. The following transportation mitigation measure has been adopted and incorporated by the County as part of the project to minimize impacts associated with the Proposed Project. 11 T-2 Prior to an increase in aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport which result in service levels exceeding 8.4 million annual passengers, the County shall make every reasonable effort to enter into an agreement with the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") in order to coordinate the Implementation of appropriate improvements for the freeway ramps impacted under the Proposed Project, as identified in Draft EIR Tables 3.2-13 and 3.2-14. The County commits to participate in the Implementation of the appropriate ramp improvements, Including funding to the extent required by law, based on the project fair share percentages identified in Table 3.2-18. Mitigation Measure T-2, as adopted, revises Draft EIR Mitigation Measure T-2. As revised, Mitigation Measure T 2 commits the County to participate in the implementation and funding of appropriate freeway ramp improvements, consistent with the information presented in Draft EIR Tables 3.2-13, 3.2-14 and 3.2-18. Actual future improvements for the freeway on- and off - ramps will be determined by studies conducted by Caltrans as part of more comprehensive studies of the regional transportation system. The studies and recommended Improvements required in order to provide an overall level of service that meets applicable performance standards for the regional transportation system is beyond the scope of EIR 582. Regardless, Mitigation Measure T-2 commits the County to participate in the implementation and funding of improvements of the freeway ramps impacted by the Project. This Mitigation Measure Is outside jurisdiction of the City, and the City has not identified any feasible traffic Mitigation Measure within its jurisdiction for this Project. 4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The following section sets forth the effects of the Proposed Project, as approved, determined to be mitigated to below a level of significance, and identifies one or more of the required findings that states facts in support of those findings with respect to each effect. 4.1 Transportation 4.1.1 Significant Effect. When compared to existing conditions, Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection shows a circulation significant project impact with the Proposed Project. This impact would be below the level of significance with the implementation of the mitigation measure specified below. 4.1.2 Finding. The Council adopts CEQA Finding 2. 4.1.3 Facts in Support of Finding, The significant circulation impact at the Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection can be mitigated to below a level of significance with the adoption of the following mitigation measure: T-1 Promptly upon project approval, the County will initiate the necessary processes to construct, or cause to be constructed, a third southbound right -turn lane at the Intersection of Campus Drive and North Bristol Street. The County has adopted Mitigation Measure T-1 and included It in Its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Measure Is outside the jurisdiction of the City, and the City has Identified no Mitigation Measure within its jurisdiction. 12 • 5.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT • This section of the findings summarizes the potential effects found not to be significant upon Implementation of the Proposed Project. The summary of the environmental effects found not to be significant is based on the environmental analysis provided in the Final EIR, Section 3.0 (Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures). 6.1 Land Use 5.1.1 Finding. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant land use impact. 5.1.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the potential effects on land use would not be significant for the identified reasons: The Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with the General Plan land use policies and zoning provisions of the County, the City, or neighboring jurisdictions. The Project site is currently designated on the County of Orange General Plan as Category 4-Public Facilities. The Proposed Project would not result in additional residential areas being exposed to noise levels in excess of adopted City General Plan standards. • Final EIR 582 evaluated the plans of policies of the applicable regional and local land use planning agencies and found that the Proposed Project would not result in conflict with adopted policies. • The Proposed Project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The Proposed Project would not result in any development that would impact established uses either on- or off -site. The Proposed Project would not conflict with adjacent existing or planned land uses. The Proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect land uses that would result in significant land use impacts in the surrounding community. There would be no land use impact because of increased noise associated with the Proposed Project (see Section 5.2 below). 5.2 Noise 5.2.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant noise impacts on surrounding noise sensitive land uses. 5.2.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the potential effects of the Proposed Project on noise levels in the surrounding community and found while the Proposed Project would result in a greater than 1.5 dB increase, it would be on one commercial area within the existing 65 CNEL contour. No noise sensitive land uses within the 65 CNEL contour would be exposed to increases greater than 1.5 dB. The noise contours associated with the Proposed Project are smaller than those developed as part of the 1985 Master Plan. 13 With regards to having four cargo flights compared to the two cargo flights assumed for Scenario 1 in Draft EIR 582, Table 3.3-17 of Appendix F, Noise Technical Report, contains a comparison of the CNEL at the receptor locations. Scenario 1 shows noise increases as high as 1.1 dB at the receptor locations that are residential land use (location 1S). The increase in the number of the air cargo flights to four ADD's, would correspond to a 0.1 dB CNEL increase in noise compared to Scenario 1, as addressed in Draft EIR 582. An examination of Table 3.3-17 shows that adding 0.1 dB CNEL to Scenario 1 noise levels (fifth column) results in the noise Increase of Scenario 1 to remain less than 1.5 dB, the threshold of significance for this analysis. Therefore, these four total cargo ADDS do not change the results or conclusions of EIR 582. 5.3 Water Quality 5.3.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant water quality impacts, 5.3.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 found the Proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality standards. JWA operates under the State's General Industrial Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit. As part of the permit requirements the airport has developed a Storm Water Pollutlon Preventlon Plan. The fueling and storm water pollution prevention facilities were upgraded in 2000. Flows from the airport are directed to existing facilities, consisting of clarifiers and oil -water separators that have sufficient capacity to treat any increased runoff resulting from the Project. 5.4 Biological Resources 5.4.1 Findin . The Proposed Project would not result In significant biological impacts. 5.4.2 Facts in Support of Finding: Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the potential effects on biological resources would not be significant for the identified reasons; The Proposed Project would not result In significant impacts on endangered, threatened, or rare species. There are no species of special concern on the airport site. Final EIR 582 found that the potential impacts on sensitive species south of JWA would be less than significant because the birds have habituated to the noise due to the long history of aviation activity In the area. The single event noise levels would be the same as what is currently experienced in the Upper Newport Bay. The projected CNEL values at noise monitoring stations by the Upper Newport Bay Identify noise levels below 60 CNEL with the Proposed Project. • The Proposed Project would not have any impacts on wetlands or locally designated species. • The Proposed Project would not impede any wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Natural Communities Conservation Plan. The project will not involve removal of coastal sage scrub habitat, or result in a net loss in Reserve System acreage or a net loss in subregionai habitat values, the project will be implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the approved Central -Coastal Subregional Natural 14 Communities Conservation Planning/Habitat Conservation (NCCP/HCP) Program . and associated state and federal permits. 6.6 Public Services and Utilities 5.5.1 Findin . The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on public services and utilities. 5.5.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the potential effects on public services and utilities would not be significant for the identified reasons: • The Proposed Project would not result in a change in the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") index that establishes fire fighting equipment needs. JWA currently exceeds the FAA requirements for fire fighting equipment. • The Orange County Sheriff Department ("OCSD") is under contract to JWA to provide police protection. The OCSD is able to adjust staff levels to meet the need. No new facilities would be required. There is sufficient capacity in the electrical capacity to serve the Proposed Project. The lease agreement with Southern California Edison provides for ten megawatts of power for JWA. Even with the increased service at JWA there would be sufficient capacity at the dedicated substation to serve the airport. • The Gas Company identified that the increased service with the Proposed Project would be within the projected'future demand for the area and no new improvements would be required. • The Sanitation District of Orange County provided a "will serve" letter to JWA at the time the 1985 Master Plan was developed, stating it will provide sufficient water and wastewater capacity for the 9.8 MAP at JWA contemplated by the Proposed Project. • The County has an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan that can provide in excess of 15 years of capacity for solid waste. The project would not result in significant impact to solid waste facilities. Though not identified as a significant impact, the County has adopted a mitigation measure to further reduce potential impacts associated with solid waste generated by the Proposed Project. The following mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated as part of the Proposed Project: PSU-1 During project design, JWA shall coordinate with the IWMD recycling coordinator to ensure that the airport minimizes the amount of solid waste generated at the airport in compliance with applicable waste reduction and recycling programs. 5.6 Aesthetics 0 5.6.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant aesthetic impact. 15 5.6.2 Facts In Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 found that the Proposed Project would not . result in a change in the visual character of the airport or surrounding areas. It would not block or alter any scenic views or vistas. There are no scenic resources, such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings, which would be effected by the Proposed Project. There are no visually sensitive areas with direct views of the airport. 6.7 Public Health and Safety 5.7.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant health and safety impact. 5.7.2 Facts In Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the potential effects on public health and safety would not be significant for the identified reasons: Historical information indicates that bird strikes are no particularly frequent at JWA despite the substantial estuarine wetland in the Upper Newport Bay, Within the departing flight track. As a result, bird strikes were found not to be a significant public safety hazard. • The Proposed Project would not result in any changes In existing runways, runway safety areas, or protection zones. There would be no changes to the type of aircraft used; therefore, no safety impacts associated with runways are anticipated. The existing emergency procedures for aircraft operation would apply to the Proposed Project. These procedures comply with all federal, state, and local standards. 5.8 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Use 5.8.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant Impact associated with hazardous materials. 5.8.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the potential impacts associated with hazardous materials would not be significant for the identified reasons: Hazardous materials at JWA are associated with fueling, maintenance, and repair of aircraft and related vehicles. The County has developed operation and maintenance procedures for the collection, recycling, and proper disposal of hazardous and California regulated waste. Through implementation of these established procedures the handling of these materials would be done in full compliance of applicable codes. The potential impact would be reduced to less than significant. The potential for fuel leaks and spills are reduced through the use of the hydrant fueling system. The Emergency Response, Spill Response, and SWPPP Plans have all developed procedures for containment of fuel spills should they occur. Continued implementation of these procedures reduces the potential impact associated with hazardous materials to less than significant. ilk a• • The greatest quantity of hazardous materials stored at JWA is Jet -A fuel. The Proposed Project would utilize the existing state-of-the-art fuel farms. The construction of this facility exceeds safety requirements. No significant impacts would occur due to fuel storage. 5.9 Risk of Upset 5.9.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant impact associated with the risk of upset. 5.9.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project would result in a finite increase in annual risk of upset potential associated with jet fuel transport accidents. It would not result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, involving the release of jet fuel into the environment. The procedures currently in use, which have protected the environment from significant impacts, would apply to the transport, storage, and handling of jet fuel with the Proposed Project. 17 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impacts analysis of EIR 582 evaluated the potential impacts to the environment that could be associated with implementation of the Proposed Project in concert with the cumulative projects and projected growth for the region. A 2006 horizon year was used for the evaluation. The Orange County Preferred- 2000 (OCP-2000) projections are used for projecting regional growth that would occur within the study area. 6.1 Significant Cumulative Effects That Cannot Be Mitigated To Below A Level Of Significance 6.1.1 Air Quality 6.1.1.1 Significant Effects. The project level air quality analysis is the same as the cumulative analysis because it utilizes 2006 project traffic levels, which are based on the projected regional growth projections. The Proposed Project would result in additional air pollutant emissions. The cumulative analysis identified emissions of CO, NO„ and PM10 would exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The violations of NO and PM„standards would be inconsistent with the adopted AQMP. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the significant air quality impacts. Nevertheless, even with Implementation of these mitigation measures, the significant cumulative operational air quality impacts for CO, NO„ and PM10cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance with Proposed Project. 6.1.1.2.1 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3. 6.1.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the adoption, by the County, of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Project, as outlined in Section 3.1.3 of these Findings. However, the impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. The City has identified no feasible toxic air contaminant mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. The City has identified no feasible air quality mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. The Council has determined the remaining significant effects to be acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 6.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants 6.1.2.1 Significant Effect. The Proposed Project will contribute to toxic air contaminants resulting in an increased risk for lifetime cancer risk and acute health risks. 6.1.2.2 Findings. The Board adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3. 6.1.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted and Incorporated Into the Proposed Project, as outlined in Section 3.2.3 of these Findings. However, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. The remaining significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 0 18 0 6.1.3 Transportation 6.1.3.1 Significant Effect. As identified in EIR sections 5.2.2 and 3.2.7, the Proposed Project would result in significant cumulative transportation impacts at three freeway (Interstate/State Route) ramp locations. With implementation of mitigation measure T-2, the identified impacts to freeway ramps would be reduced to a level below significant. However, mitigation measure-T-2 is within the jurisdiction, in whole or in part, of the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"). Caltrans has notified the County that certain freeway improvement programs administered by Caltrans are currently not funded and, therefore, these improvement programs should not be relied upon as mitigation for congestion impacts due to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, in the event the proposed T-2 ramp improvements are not implemented prior to initiation of the flight and MAP levels identified for the Proposed Project, the identified freeway ramp impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. The two additional daily cargo flights which would occur under the Proposed Project are expected to generate approximately 186 daily trips, which represents an increase of approximately .3 percent in the Proposed Project's total trip generation. This limited increased in daily vehicle trips attributable to two additional daily cargo flights would not affect the results of the traffic analysis presented in the EIR. Additionally, the initiation of increased MAP levels as of January 1, 2003, as compared to a later date, does not alter the results of the traffic analysis; the EIR traffic analysis assumes ultimate MAP levels at the outset of the Proposed Project. 6.1.3.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3. 6.1.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Proposed Project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the adoption, by the County, of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Project, as outlined in Section 3.3.3 of these Findings. However, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. The City has identified no feasible transportation mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. The remaining significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 6.2 Cumulative Effects Determined To Be Mitigated To Below A Level Of Significance 6.2.1 Transportation 6.2.1.1 Significant Effect. The traffic analysis evaluated the cumulative impacts associated with regional growth. A significant impact was identified at the Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection. This impact would be below the level of significance with the implementation of the mitigation measure specified below. 6.2.1.2 Finding. The Council adopts CEQA Finding 2. 6.2.1.3 Facts in Support of Finding. The significant circulation impact at the Campus Drive/Bristol Street North intersection can be mitigated to below a level of significance with the 19 implementation of mitigation measure T-1, which the County has adopted and incorporated as part of the project, and Is provided in Section 4.1.3 of these Findings. 6.3 Cumulative Effects Determined Not To Be Significant This section of the findings summarizes the potential effects found not to be significant upon implementation of the Proposed Project. The summary of the environmental effects found not to be significant is based on the environmental analysis provided in the Final EIR, Section 5.0 (Cumulative Impacts) and Section 6.2 (Growth Inducing). The project is anticipated to result in the following impacts that are not significant: 6.3.1 Land Use 6.3.1.1 Finding. implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant cumulative land use impacts. 6.3.1.2 Facts in Support of Finding. A review of the cumulative projects does not identify any projects that would contribute to land use impacts resulting in significant cumulative land use impacts. Potential land use impacts associated with the Proposed Project are very project specific (i.e., specific to airport operations). None of the cumulative projects are aviation related. The Proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts. 6.3.2 Noise 6.3.2.1 Finding. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant cumulative noise impacts. 6.3.2.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The cumulative projects identified In the study area would not result in substantial increase in the noise levels surrounding the airport. The noise generated by the cumulative projects would be predominately traffic noise and Would not affect the noise contours associated with the Proposed Project. 6.3.3 Water Quality 6.3.3.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative water quality impacts. 6.3.3.2 Facts in Support of Finding. JWA has developed structural improvements and procedural guidelines to ensure complete containment of potential spills. The runoff from the cumulative projects in the project study area would also flow to the Upper Newport Bay, an Impaired water body. Each of the cumulative projects that discharge into the Upper Newport Bay have been required to implement measures to reduce the pollutant load of runoff from the project to comply with the Clean Water Act. No significant cumulative water quality impacts would be anticipated. 6.3.4 Biological Resources 6.3.4.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative biological impacts. 20 . 6.3.4.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Biotic resources are not an issue of concern for the majority of the cumulative projects because of the developed nature of the project sites. The biotic value of the Home Ranch Project is limited because of its degraded nature; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated to address potential impacts. Since the Proposed Project would not have significant impacts and the minimal biotic impacts of the cumulative projects, no significant biotic cumulative would occur. 6.3.5 Public Services and Utilities 6.3.5.1 Facts. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts on public services and utilities. 6.3.5.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project would not have any significant impacts on public services and utilities. No physical improvements to facilities would be required to serve the Proposed Project. The utility master plans prepared by the various service providers consider the anticipated regional growth; therefore, there is sufficient capacity in the various systems to serve the anticipated growth assumed by the cumulative projects. No significant cumulative impacts on public services and utilities are anticipated. 6.3.6 Aesthetics 6.3.6.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative aesthetic impact. . 6.3.6.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The project would not have visual impacts at the airport or on the surrounding area. For a project to have a cumulative visual effect, the Proposed Project elements and those of the cumulative project would need to be seen in the same or adjacent viewshed. None of the cumulative projects would be in the same viewshed as the Proposed Project. None of the other projects would influence the visual character of the project area. Given the urban nature of the study area, a significant cumulative impact on the visual character of the study area would not occur 6.3.7 Public Health and Safet 6.3.7.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative health and safety impact. 6.3.7.2 Facts in Support of Finding. No public safety issues were identified for the Proposed Project. The Project would not change the air field facilities, the operating procedures, or type of aircraft used at JWA. None of the cumulative projects would have the potential for having similar type safety issues that would contribute to cumulative impacts. Compliance with applicable State and federal regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant. 6.3.8 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Use 6.3.8.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative health and . safety impacts. 21 6.3.8.2 Facts /n Support of Finding. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact associated with hazardous wastes or materials. JWA has implemented programs to protect against a hazard associated with the use of materials classified as hazardous. Hazardous materials were not identified as an issue for the other cumulative projects in the study area. No significant cumulative impact would result. 6.3.9 Risk of Uoset 6,3.9.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts associated with the risk of upset. 6.3.9.2 Facts In Support of Findings. The cumulative projects are located some distance away from the JWA site, are not industrial projects that would typically transport, handle or store large amounts of hazardous, flammable or explosive materials, the potential for cumulative risk of upset impacts, either during construction or operation. The potential cumulative impacts on nearby residents, businesses and/or persons using nearby roadways resulting from the risks associated with the transport, storage, or use of aviation is considered remote. 6.3.10 Growth inducing 6.3.10.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative growth inducing impacts. 6.3.10.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project is not considered to be growth inducing since the additional air transportation capacity would not exceed existing or future demand for air transportation. The cumulative projects are not responding to the potential increase in capacity at JWA, but rather are consistent with the projected regional growth. The Proposed Project and cumulative projects are responding to the planned growth. Combined, these projects would not result in any significant pressure to redevelop the area around JWA at a higher intensity, which is currently a major employment area for Orange County. 7.0 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Proposed Project will result in some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the Council must consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives to the project. The Council must evaluate whether such alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. These findings contrast and compare the environmental impacts of the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR. The Board has determined that the project alternatives are not feasible, and therefore, is required by CEQA, before approving the project it adopted findings Including a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project setting forth the factors that warrant approval of the project despite the existence of adverse environmental impacts. The Council has also reviewed the EIR carefully and independently, and evaluated the feasibility of alternatives. The EIR must focus its analysis of alternatives on alternatives that "could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project". However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of avoiding or lessening" 22 environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment • of the project objectives or would be more costly." (Guidelines §15126.6(b).) CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." PUB. RES. CODE §21081 provides, in part: "...[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly - trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See, PUB. RES. CODE. §21061.1; GUIDELINES §15364; SB 919 (amending PUB. RES. CODE §21081 (c).); see also, City of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,564-566; City of Del Mar v. . City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 415-417. These findings contrast and compare the alternatives, where appropriate, to show that the selection of the project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the Council has examined both the environmental impacts and the project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The Council finds, after due consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives as set forth in the EIR and below, that in light of its stated objectives, the Proposed Project best meets the objectives with the least environmental impact. The Council finds that the Proposed Project provides the best possible protection for the community and the environment while balancing the County's needs to respond to demand for service. 7.1 No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes the continuation of the provisions in Final EIS/EIR 508 and the implementation of the full terms of the Settlement Agreement. This alternative would provide for 73 regulated ADD and two air cargo ADD; however, there would not be the legal restrictions of a court adopted settlement agreement in place. This alternative also assumes that the number of passengers served at JWA would increase from 7.8 MAP served in the year 2000 to 8.4 MAP as provided for in the Settlement Agreement by January 1, 2006. The curfew and the General Aviation Noise Ordinance ("GANO") would not change. • The No Project Alternative would incrementally reduce the impacts associated with traffic and air quality compared to the Proposed Project; however, the impacts would not be reduced to a 23 level below significance. The operational air quality emissions would still exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. While the Proposed Project was found to be Inconsistent with the AQMP because of the increased emissions levels, the No Project Alternative should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP because a level of operation serving 8.4 MAP at JWA was found to conform with the 1997 AQMP in the 2001 RTP, and Is included in the adopted 2001 RTP. For toxic air contaminants, the lifetime cancer risks would exceed the significance threshold of 10 in one million at all ME[ receptors for the No Project Alternative. Therefore, similar to the Proposed Project, calculated excess lifetime cancer risks under worst - plausible exposure scenarios would result in significant impacts. However, for the No Project alternative the impacts would fall below the level of significance for chronic non -cancer health hazards. This alternative would reduce the Impacts compared to the Proposed Project; however, it does not reduce them to a level of insignificance. Further, it does not effectively meet the project objectives, and therefore, would not be feasible, as it applies to these Findings. It would not be responsive to the need to revise regulatory operational restrictions at JWA in light of current circumstances, and the current needs of the affected communities and the industry interests represented at JWA (objective 5). The No Project Alternative would also not meet Project Objective 4, which is to provide a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport users and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future period of time. With the No Project Alternative there would not be any Settlement Agreement In place that would define the level of permitted aviation activity. Because, for the City, the legal protection of an ongoing Agreement is a critical goal, the No Project Alternative does not effectively meet the project objectives and is therefore, for purposes of these Findings, not feasible. 7.2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 would permit the number of regulated flights at JWA to increase from the current 73 ADD to 85 ADD; however, the additional flights would be permitted to initiate on April 1, 2002. Scenario 2 would permit a passenger service level of 10.8 MAP. Under this scenario, all 85 regulated flights would be Class A flights. Approximately, 74 Class E flights would be needed to achieve the 10.8 MAP level. Similar to the Proposed Project, a total of four air cargo flights would be allowed commencing January 1, 2006. The Settlement Agreement would be extended only five years beyond Its current term, to December 31, 2010. This alternative would be environmentally worse than the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will result In significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, traffic, and toxic air contaminants. This scenario would have incrementally greater impacts in each of these areas due to the larger number of passengers being served at JWA. With Scenario 2 there would also be additional significant impacts to several segments of the freeway mainline, which would not occur with the Proposed Project. Additionally, Scenario 2 would have significant unavoidable impacts related to noise and land use, which would not be experienced with the Proposed Project. This scenario would also not meet the project objectives as effectively as the Proposed Project. It would not provide the same level of protection as the Proposed Project to environmental 24 interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA (objective 2). Scenario 2 would result in unavoidable adverse significant impacts associated with noise and land use that are not associated with the Proposed Project. This alternative would also not be as effective in meeting the provisions of Project Objective 4, as the Proposed Project. This Project Objective calls for providing a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport users and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future period of time. Scenario 2 does provide certainty on the level of aviation activity through the end of 2010; however, the Proposed Project is able to define the level of activity through the end of 2015. The Proposed Project has fewer significant environmental impacts and better meets the project objectives. The City finds this alternative infeasible for these reasons. 7.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 provided for more growth at JWA than the Proposed Project. This scenario would have permitted the number of regulated flights at JWA to increase from 73 ADD to 85 ADD as of April 1, 2002 and increase to 100 ADD as of January 1, 2006. There would be no restrictions on the MAP levels, though based on the fleet mix approximately 12.3 MAP would be served with this scenario. All 100 regulated flights would be Class A flights. A total of four air cargo flights would be allowed; as of January 1, 2006. The Settlement Agreement would be extended ten years beyond its current term, until December 31, 2015. This alternative would have worse environmental impacts than the Proposed Project. The . Proposed Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, traffic, and toxic air contaminants. Scenario 3 would have greater impacts than the Proposed Project in each of these areas due to the increased number of regulated flights and the larger number of passengers being served at JWA. With Scenario 3 there would also be significant impacts to an additional freeway ramp and several segments of the freeway mainline, which would not occur with the Proposed Project. This scenario would also have significant unavoidable impacts related to noise and land use, which would not be experienced with the Proposed Project. This scenario would not meet the project objectives associated with protecting the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA, nor would it provide a good balance between providing air service and protecting against local environmental consequences. This scenario would provide increased aircraft operations at JWA at the expense of the quality of life that the City wishes to protect. This is from the City's perspective, not a feasible alternative. 7.4 Alternative D Alternative D would have maximized the use of the airport and more fully met Orange County's air travel demand. There would be no restrictions on the number or type of flights, the MAP served at JWA, or on the size of the facilities at the airport. The airport curfew and the provisions of the GANO would remain. The analysis assumed 181 ADD of Class A aircraft and would accommodate 13.9 MAP. 25 This alternative would have substantially greater environmental impacts than the Proposed Project related to noise, air quality, transportation, and land use, it would not effectively meet the project objectives. It would not protect environmental interests or the concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA regarding "quality of life" issues (Project Objective 2). This Alternative would not permit the County to maintain a reasonable balance between air service and local environmental consequences of that service in a manner which controls and minimizes the County's risk of noise damage claims which otherwise might be made against the County. It is not feasible both because it falls to meet these project objectives and because of its significant adverse environmental impacts. 7.5 Alternative E Alternative E would extend the Settlement Agreement until December 31, 2015. As of January 1, 2005, up to 79 ADD of regulated flights would be allowed to serve up to 8.8 MAP. All of the noise -regulated flights would be Class A. The curfew and GANO would not change with this alternative. As set forth in Final EIR 582, Alternative E Is environmentally superlor to the Proposed Project because it would have Incrementally less impacts associated with traffic, air quality, and air toxics. However, this alternative would not reduce these adverse impacts below the level of significance. Alternative E would not meet the project objectives as effectively as the Proposed Project. Alternative E would provide some additional capacity and modify some existing restrictions on aircraft operations at JWA (Project Objective 1); however, the minor incremental increase in the number of passengers served by Alternative E would not provide sufficient increased air transportation opportunities to be effective. It would not be responsive to the needs of Orange County's air travel needs. Alternative E only partially meets the project objectives and is not an adequate basis for a tong -term Agreement between the City, the County and the other parties. It is therefore, for purposes of these Findings not a feasible option. 8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT NOT PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION 8.1 Air Quality Mitigation Measures The project would result in some incremental increases in air quality Impacts in CO and NOx that are considered significant. While mitigation has been adopted, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concludes that the identified impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under the project. In addition, some of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR relate to possible future construction activities, which might ultimately be proposed for study, but which are not part of the approved project. These mitigation measures would more appropriately be considered and evaluated for adoption by the County if and when specific facility improvements are proposed for implementation and the necessary environmental analysis for any such improvements is prepared (Mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-4 through AQ-7, AQ-10, AQ-12, AQ-14, AQ-15, AQ-17, and AQ-18). Therefore, although these air quality mitigation measures were evaluated, they are not included in the approved project. The Board has found that implementation of the following measures are not feasible at this time, the Council finds that these measures are IE outside of the City's jurisdiction, but can and should be adopted when appropriate by the County. AQ-1 Dust Suppression. During construction of the Proposed Project, the County of Orange and its contractors will be required to comply with regional rules, which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides dust suppression techniques in addition to those in Rule 403. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component) from grading by 50 percent. Applicable air measures from the County of Orange Standard Conditions of Approval shall be implemented. During the process of developing construction -level plans and completing environmental review for construction, additional construction mitigation will be provided, as necessary. Construction measures may include requiring diesel construction equipment to use ultra low sulfur fuel and CARB-certified engines, and designating monitors to supervise the dust control program. Formulation of a detailed construction level mitigation plan is not possible until the County develops further information on construction plans. The significant impacts associated with operational emissions, air concentrations, and plans and policies identified for the Proposed Project would be mitigated by the following feasible mitigation measures: AQ-2 The County of Orange shall include electrical power outlets for landside passenger shuttles, including incorporation of electrical power outlets in the terminal and parking lot designed to accommodate electric shuttle vehicles. AQ-4 Prior to final design, the County shall ensure that final design of the project will minimize taxi -in and taxi -out times and reduce aircraft queuing times. These features incorporate airfield and terminal design and location of the terminal (selected to facilitate ready access to the airfield). AQ-5 The County of Orange shall include electrical power and preconditioned air in the design and construction of any new terminal gates, to reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates. These facilities allow airlines to avoid emissions associated with running the aircraft's auxiliary power unit while it is parked at the gate. The County of Orange shall advise the tenant airlines in writing that the County supports the use of electrical power and preconditioned air at the JWA terminal gates (jetways) in order to reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates. This measure is partly within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the airlines. AQ-6 The County of Orange shall include electrical power outlets at JWA for electric ramp vehicles, and for battery charging for ground support equipment for the design and construction of new terminal gates. The facilities will allow the airlines to convert their GSE to clean fuels. 27 AQ-7 The County of Orange shall incorporate hydrant fueling systems for the new passenger boarding gates for commercial jet aircraft operations. In addition, all new fuel handling and storage facilities will comply with the latest emission reduction regulations. AQ-10 The County of Orange shall use lighting controls and energy efficient lighting in the design of airport facilities. AQ-12 The County of Orange shall implement an on -site circulation plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing. AQ-14 For any new construction, the County of Orange shall use energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioners. AQ-15 For any new construction, the County of Orange shall implement an on -site circulation plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing at JWA. AQ-17 The County shall continue to design the parking facilities to encourage pay -on -foot (i.e., before getting into car) to minimize idle time. AQ-18 The County shall provide charging stations and preferential parking locations for electric vehicles in all (including employee) lots. 8.2 Public Services and Utilities Draft EIR 582 contained a mitigation measure pertaining to recycling of concrete and asphalt associated with project demolition to minimize impacts on landfills. While the EIR Identified that physical improvements could be a foreseeable outgrowth of the Proposed Project, it does not provide for the construction or demolition of any facilities at JWA. Therefore, the County has determined mitigation measure PSU-2 is more appropriately adopted at the time that environmental documentation on a construction project is prepared. The following mitigation measure contained in Draft EIR 582 was not adopted by the County: PSU-2 At the time of construction of improvements, the contractor specifications shall require the contractor to take concrete and asphalt from project demolition to an off site recycling location to minimize Impacts to existing landfills. The contractor shall provide the Airport Project Engineer with verification that the materials have been recycled. The City finds that this Mitigation Measure Is within the responsibility of the County, and can and should be adopted by the County when appropriate. 9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 Background CEQA Guidelines § 1509(h) requires responsible agency to make the findings required by section 15093, regarding overriding considerations that justify the approval of a project for which significant environmental effects have been Identified. Guidelines § 15093 provides as follows: 0 28 "(a) CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. if the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to supports its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to § 15091." In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Council hereby finds that the mitigation measures discussed in these findings and adopted by the County, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, when implemented, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The City has not identified any additional feasible mitigation measures or alternative within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment. In summary, even with implementation of the mitigation measures described in Final EIR 582 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the following effects are considered to be significant and unmitigable at this time: Air Quality The project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts associated with operations provided for with the Proposed Project at JWA. Emissions would exceed the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Should at a later date physical improvements to the facilities at JWA be proposed for implementation, there is the potential for construction related emissions in excess of adopted standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with construction activities. Toxic Air Contaminants The Proposed Project would result in significant adverse and unavoidable toxic air contaminant impacts for lifetime cancer risk and acute health risks. Traffic 4fl Four freeway ramps and the Campus Drive/Airport Way North intersection would be significantly impacted with the Project when compared to existing conditions. These impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of identified mitigation measures; however, currently there are no funding sources identified for the Improvements. The mitigation measures recommended for the project include measures that are under the jurisdiction and control of agencies other than the County and the City. If these agencies do not implement or approve these measures, the project impacts may be significant. If the measures are not implemented prior to full implementation of the flight and MAP levels Identified for the Proposed Project, the impacts to the freeway ramps and the identified intersection would remain significant impacts. In approving this project, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects. In this regard, the Council finds that feasible mitigation measures have been or will be implemented with this project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, all of which are based on the facts set forth in these findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Final EIR 582, all the related technical reports and appendices, and the record of this project. 0 9.2 Overriding Considerations . The Council has identified the following overriding considerations in making the determination to adopt the Proposed Project despite the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts analyzed in the Final EIR for the project, and identified in Section 3, above. The Council finds that these considerations, individually and cumulatively, are relevant and valid reasons that make the selected Project acceptable despite the fact that significant remaining unavoidable adverse effects of the Project 'have been identified. The Council has concluded that the adopted project is of sufficient benefit to the people of the City. of Newport Beach and also of Orange County, for economic, fiscal, social, technological, legal and other reasons to be acceptable and to warrant its adoption. The benefits of the project, which are described below, outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. After analyzing the impacts of a range of scenarios and alternatives, the City has determined that the Proposed Project represents the optimal balancing of the City's goals of protecting the important environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity and the County's need to provide increased air transportation opportunities to the air traveling public in response to an increased demand. 2. The Proposed Project protects the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA, including their concerns regarding noise and other "quality of life" issues relating to the operation of JWA to a greater extent than the other • scenarios evaluated in the EIR. The Project provides assurances through December 31, 2015 that no new noise sensitive uses will be exposed to aviation noise levels in excess of adopted standards. 3. Adoption of the Proposed Project establishes a reasonable level of commercial passenger service at JWA (9.8 MAP) and provides certainty to the local community, airport users, and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA through December 31, 2015. Having this certainty better allows the airlines to schedule flights and establish routes that best meet the needs of Orange County residents, and also provides long-term protections to Newport Beach and its residents. 4. The Proposed Project will preserve and continue to implement important restrictions on the use of JWA that are "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. It reflects historical policy decisions of the Orange County Board of Supervisors regarding the appropriate point of balance between the competing interests of the air transportation and aviation community and local residents living in the vicinity of the airport. These include the existing nighttime operations restrictions and maximum permitted single -event noise levels. 5. The Proposed Project best balances the provision of increased air service with the County's desire to minimize its risk of noise damage claims. 6. The adoption of the Proposed Project allows JWA to help meet a greater portion of the air travel demand generated in Orange County which will benefit the residents of 31 Orange County, including City residents, by providing more convenient air travel without having to travel to other regional airports. 0 7. By increasing the amount of air cargo service being provided at JWA, the Project will assist businesses in Orange County by providing improved air cargo service in Orange County. 32 City of Newport Beach FILE COPY Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 SUBJECT: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension General Plan Amendment, GPA 2002-001(PA 2001-222) An amendment to the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan relating to the extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, Ms, Temple noted that this Item Is to be continued at the request of staff to June 20th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranziey, Selich Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ti a}\ City Council Follow-up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council reviewed \and approved an amendment to the contract for MIG, the General Plan Vision consultant to account for the extension of the timeframe of the vislgning process, and the enlargement of the sample size of the telephone surve'',,as well as the report on the Planning Commission meeting. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich stated that on June 19th I the full Economic Development Committee meeting will have a business update on tourlsin)Jndustry. c) Report from Planning-•Oommission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no'meting. eq d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) NN, f) Matters that a Planning Commissionbf would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. %, 9) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none, h) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no updates, `c 1) Project status - Ms. Temple reported that EZ Lube appeased the denial of their use permit; and there is to be meeting on June 171h at'9:00 a.m. In the Council Chambers of the Users Group to explain the permlf- streamlining M process. k j) Requests for excused absences - none. `YA INDEX Item 6 PA 2001-222 Continued to 06/20/2002 Additional Business *********4'*ECRLOTI'*B-900 39 IIIIIIIIIIII II IIIII IIIIIII'11'IIII11111III'llllllll'l II III IIII Patricia Temple City Of Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: County's Management of El Toro Hurts Business and Taxpayers Dear Patricia Temple: The El Toro Marine Corps Air Station has been closed for more than a year. Public support for the County's plan to build an international airport on the base continues to decline -- only one-third of Orange County residents still support the airport plan. The Marine Corps left behind millions of dollars in valuable assets that the County is wasting. There are more than one thousand excellent housing units that could be rented to help alleviate Orange County's critical shortfall of affordable housing and improve our jobs -to -housing balance. There are nearly three million square feet of commercial, industrial, office and warehouse space left vacant on the property. To date, the County has failed to capitalize on the millions of dollars in revenue that the well -managed re -use of these assets would produce. County officials are afraid that individuals and businesses leasing housing and commercial space at El Toro would interfere with their plan to develop an airport. As a result, the County continues to operate the El Toro property at a loss while allowing valuable buildings and resources to deteriorate. Our economic studies indicate that intelligent re -use of the assets at El Toro will pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the property and create an endowment for developing a vast central park and other regional public benefits. It is time to start applying sound business principles to the management and re -use of El Toro. The City of Irvine is working to annex this property in order to give Orange County a Central Park, museums, libraries, universities, wildlife and habitat reserve, and new sports, recreation and entertainment facilities. Together we can create a plan for El Toro that will make effective use of our assets, strengthen our economy, and improve the quality of life for every Orange County resident. Sincerely, ell G Dan Jung Executive ' ctor Irvine Redevelopment Agency P.S. I have enclosed a copy of our recent Orange County Great Park Strategic Report that contains more details about our El Toro re -use plan. Notice of Determination FROM: City of Newport Beach TO: Office of Planning and Research Community and Economic Development 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard Sacramento, Calif 95814 Newport Beach, C,4,Q2�`6 Orange County Clerk -Recorder 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room #106 P.O. Box 238 Zoo Q�QV®6ta Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: ��N P\McvFkKP�Co \gV Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the F,,,OWCe Code. (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person Project Description: In 1985, the County of Orange, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the City of Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. entered into a stipulation to Implement the settlement of the longstanding dispute between the parties concerning the development and operation of John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ("JWA") ("the 1985 Settlement Agreement"). The project consists of the amending the 1985 Settlement Agreement ("the Amended Stipulation") to provide certain capacity enhancing modifications, including: (1) Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class A flights and eliminating the Class AA Aircraft definition/distinction; (2) Increasing the number of regulated flights allocated to passenger Commercial Carriers at JWA from seventy-three (73) Average Daily Departures ("ADDs") to eighty-five (85) ADDs, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (3) Increasing the Million Annual Passengers ("MAP") level served at the Airport from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (4) Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of passengers served by Commuter Aircraft, Class E Aircraft and Class A Aircraft in regularly scheduled commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (5) Increasing the number of cargo flights from JWA from two (2) Class A ADD cargo flights to a total of four (4) Class A ADD cargo flights, for a total of eighty-nine (89) Class A ADD flights, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; and (6) Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading bridges. This is to advise that the City Newport Beach Beach has approved the above described project on OLead Agency Sesponsible Agency June 25.2002 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project. Date 1. The project [11111 will ❑ will not ] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ■ An Environmental Impact Report was preparedforthis project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation Measures ■ were ❑ were not ] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [111111 was ❑ was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings (■ were Owere not ] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Environmental Impact Report and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the Newport Beach City Hall, Department of Community and Economic Development, 3300 Newport Boulvevard, Newport Beach, CA. Date Received for filing at OPR: FISH AND GAME CEQA IMPLEMENTATION REGULATIONS NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Summary The County of Orange approved an Amended Stipulation for John Wayne Airport (JWA) on June 25, 2002. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the evaluation of potential environmental effects associated with the project. The EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.), and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq.). The EIR found that the project would not have an impact on biological resources and as such qualifies for a de minimis harm fee exemption from the Fish and Game CEQA Implementation Regulations. Project City of Newport Beach Proponent Community and Economic Development 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Project In 1985, the County of Orange, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the City of Newport Description Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport and the Airport Working Group of Orange Coin, Inc. entered into a stipulation to implement the settlement of the longstanding dispute between the parties concerning the development and operation of John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ("JWA") ("the 1985 Settlement Agreement"). The project consists of amending the 1985 Settlement Agreement ("the Amended Stipulation") to provide certain capacity enhancing modifications, including: (1) Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class Aflights and eliminating the Class AA Aircraft definition/distinction; (2) Increasing the number of regulated flights allocated to passenger Commercial Carriers at JWA from seventy-three (73) Average Daily Departures ("ADDs") to eighty-five (85) ADDs, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (3) Increasing the Million Annual Passengers ("MAP") level served at the Airport from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (4) Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of passengers served by Commuter Aircraft, Class EAircraft and Class AAircraft in regularly scheduled commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; (5) Increasing the number of cargo flights from JWA from two (2) Class A ADD cargo flights to a total of four (4) Class A ADD cargo flights, for a total of eighty-nine (89) Class A ADD flights, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015; and (6) Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading bridges. Environmental Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County of Orange is the lead Documentation agency for the project. An EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.), and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq.) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the project's construction and use. The EIR was distributed for a 47-day public review period from November 19, 2001 through January 7, 2002. Wildlife When considering the record as a whole, it was determined that the project would not Determination have any impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Finding of de Notwithstanding subsections (a)(4) and (5), the County of Orange finds when considering Minimis Harm the record as a whole the JWA Settlement Agreement Amendment involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife (as defined by Section 711.1 of the Fish and Game Code), therefore no fee is required. June 26 2002 _ Patrick Alford, S for Planner Date City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 11, 2001 INDEX 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP xes YUM-y6 � SIGNS ON FORD ROAD AT NEWPORT HILLS DRIVE EAST. Stop Signs on '"-..Adopt Resolution No. 2001-96 requiring all traffic on Ford Road to stop Ford Road at W orb_ t Hills Drive East. (85) S. APPROVAL OF -..RESOLUTIONS FOR REQUESTING STATE Res 2001-97 PARK BOND FUN&:" Adopt the following resolutions for application Res 2001-98 of grant funds under the Safe Neighborhood Park Clean Water, Clean Sate Park Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of•2000: 1) Resolution No. 2001-97 Bond Funds for grant funds for the Per Capita Gran%F,und in the amount of (62) $685,000; and 2) Resolution No. 2001- 98 for grant funds for the Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant in the amount of $220,120. Res 2001.99 9. JWA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PA 2001-222). Adopt Resolution No. 2001-99 GPI 2001-003 initiating the General Plan Amendment (GPI 2001-003). (45) 10. Removed at the request of an audience member. ti.. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 11. "',.Removed at the request of Council Member Glover. 12. AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT FOR FIRE, RESCUE AND C-3498 EMERt ,ENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF Automatic Aid for NEWPORT BEACH AND THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH. Fire, Rescue and Approve the subject agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the Emergency Medical agreement. Services (38) 13. BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT RESURFACING. 1) Authorize the C-3333 resurfacing of the Balboa Pier Parking lot to be included within the Balboa Pier scope of work for the Balboa Village Improvement Project (C-3333); and Parking Lot 2) authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 with Resurfacing GCI Construction, Inc., in the amount of $195,135 for this work. (38) 14. CITY FACILITY LIGHTING RETROFIT — AWARD OF C-3477 CONTRACT (C-3477). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; City Facility 2) award the contract (C-3477) to Sylvania Lighting Services for the Lighting Retrofit total bid price of $122,568.40 and authorize the Mayor and the City (38) Clerk to execute the contract, and 3) establish an amount of $12,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work. 15. DOVER DRIVE ZONE lI WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AND 0-3394 STREET REHABILITATION FROM CLIFF DRIVE TO WEST Dover Drive Zone II COAST HIGHWAY — AWARD OF CONTRACT (C-3394). Water Main 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C-3394) Replacement and to Albert W. Davies for the total bid price of $770,931 and authorize the Street Rehabilitation Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and 3) establish an (38) amount of $50,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work. 16. POLLUTION LEGAL LIABILITY RENEWAL. Approve the renewal Pollution Legal of the pollution legal liability insurance coverage with Greenwich Liability Renewal Volume 54 - Page 616 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes December 11, 2001 Park and its economic costs and asked each city to consider adopting the same resolution. He requested that this be placed on the next agenda since the City is a member of OCRAA. Council Member Glover stated that she has been working with General Services Director Niederhaus about possibly increasing the trimming of the mature City trees and requested that this be placed on a future agenda. klayor Pro Tetra Bromberg announced that the Little Balboa Island pp}} perty Owners Association will be presenting a flag to the Fire Debpprtment at the Balboa Island Fire Station on Saturday, December 15 at�10:00 a.m. in honor of the firefighters, as well as the firefighters who h�ve lost their lives. Mayor Rit sway requested an origin and destination study on all traffic in order to understand why the City has so much traffic during the peak hour when the City has actually reduced the allocable trips in terms of lanj use. He asked that this be made part of the visioning process. J. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2. MINUTES OF THE AD4 MEETING OF NOVEMB minutes, approve as written Council Member Adams tNED REGULAR 27, 2001. Waive order filed. READING OF ORDINANCES reading in full of all ordinances ar. and direct City Clerk to read by title ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION 3. Removed at the request of Council AND REGULAR reading of subject voting on this item. RESOLUTIONS. Waive utions under consideration, 4. Removed at the request of Council Member ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION Glover, 5. ORDINANCE EXTENDING NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES WITH ADELPHIA & COX CABLE COMMUNICATIONS. Adopt Ordinance No. 2001.23. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION k 6. RESOLUTION RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2001, DECLARING THE RESULT AND OTHER SUCH MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. Adopt Resolution No. 2001.95. INDEX Ord 2001.23 Adelphia and Cox Cable (42) Res 2001.95 Special Municipal Election Results (39) Volume 54 - Page 616 RESOLUTION NO. 1545 FILE Cap U A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE INITIATION OF AMMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [GPI 2001- 0031 WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 establishes that amendments to the General Plan shall be initiated by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement may require amendments to certain policies in the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 29,2001, the Planning Commission of the City ofNewport Beach considered the initiation of the proposed amendment at a public meeting; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public meeting; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach initiate amendments to the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan. ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McDaniel, Kiser, Aaaianian Tucker, Gifford, Selich NOES: None ABSENT: Kranzlev 1 �r BY "�D -7 T 77'--� Larry Tucker, Chairman BY� Earl McDaniel, Secretary 2 2 Toro Educatlonal Alliance, a project of Arport Working Group of Orange County P.O. Box 3300 i Tustin, California 92781 Great Park Will Cost ,"'Gobs of Taxpayer Funds" El Toro "park" very costly The National Park Service, using taxpayers' money and private do- nations, recently turned San Fran- cisco's Crissy Field (originally a tiny U.S. Army airport) into a 100-acre park. The cost was $33.9 million, which includes no new "At that rate, structures. At that rate, a 4,700-acre park at the former El a 4,700-acre park Toro air station would cost about , at the former EI Toro $1.6 billion. This would-be in addi- air station would cost tion to the costs of building horti- about $1.6 billion." cultural gardens, a zoo, a lake, edu- cational facilities, a concert shell, ! museums, swimming pools or h other amenities. Supporters of the park promise that it will be built without new taxes. The Orange County Taxpayers Association i (OCTax) wonders whether a park can be built without the "gobs of taxpayer funds" predicted by Reg- ister senior editorial writer Steven Greenhut ["NIMBY Park," Sunday, May 61. Reed L. Royalty San Juan Capistrano Mr. Royalty is president Orange County i Taxpayers Association (OCTax). The Orange County Register N May 23, 2001 GREAT PARK ?GREAT TAX! Non -Profit Org U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1768 Santa Ana, CA ker ute:' To team more about Irvine's "Great Park" scheme, call 888-722-2425 or visit our website at eltoronow.org 1 Park supporters hope P.T. Barnum was right. The politicians pushing "Great Park" have already spent $40 million in tax money claiming they can build a 4,700-acre park without a tax increase — which the Orange County Register calls "laughable." Source:aargecotmryReglster,-s-s-oi Great Park supporters promise a lush botanical garden, a world -class zoo, soccer fields, a concert shell, a 100-acre lake, a county library, educational facilities, swimming pools, museums, golf courses and miles of hiking and wilderness trails — all without a tax increase. s. Great park plar.,(ng Report, s-1-ot Great Park sounds "too good to be true" because it is. Great Park supporters say the park can be built for $200 million — without a tax increase. Source: "A Review of Potential Revenue Sow es for Funk" the Millenrii m Phase Three Master Plan - But the Orange County Taxpayers Association calculates Great Park "would cost about $1.6 billion. This would be in addition to the costs of building horticultural gardens, a zoo, a lake, educational facilities, a concert shell, museums, swimming pools or other amenities." so..: aange c.,tyRegfstar, 5-23-01 Even a study commissioned by park supporters concludes that "property taxes could be justified" to pay for Great Park, and that bonds, assessments and other local taxes "will likely be important components" of Great Park's funding plan. Source: "A Review of Potential Revenue Sources for Funcin9 the MHIenrd m Phase Three Master Plan,- pages 119 and 122 If you agree this is a sucker's deal, call the City of Irvine to protest its Great Park scheme. The number is 949-724-6000. "I call it `Great Pork, referring to the gobs of taxpayer funds that would be needed to support even the least ambitious uses of the acreage." Steven Greenhut Senior Editorial Writer Orange County Register May 6, 2001 "The Orange County Taxpayers Association strongly doubts that the park can be built without the `gobs of taxpayer funds' predicted by Register senior editorial writer Steven Greenhut:' Reed Royalty President Orange County Taxpayers Association May 23, 2001 " There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum GREAT PARK ?GREAT TAX! 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney TO: File FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Extension EIR DATE: May 29, 2001 The following is a summary of the issues we want to discuss at the first meeting and the desired outcome on each: Nature of EIR - Program EIR to serve as a basis for settlement agreement extension signature and follow-up actions such as JWA Master Plan amendment, land use element amendment etc. 2. Project Objectives: The following were proposed in an earlier document (a) To maintain the quality of life of the residents affected by aircraft operations at JWA. (b) To preserve the value of the residential property and commercial property impacted by aircraft operations at JWA. (c) To provide for additional facilities that could enhance the capacity of JWA to an extent consistent with the preservation of property values and the quality of life in communities directly impacted by JWA operations. (d) To ensure that the vehicular traffic (generated by air transportation demand) that is distributed to JWA (as opposed to other regional airports) can be adequately accommodated by the circulation system in the vicinity of the airport. (e) To modify existing restrictions on commercial air carrier operations to increase capacity without any adverse impact on airport safety. (f) To protect the water quality and biological resources in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve that is immediately south of the airport and directly under the standard instrument departure procedure utilized by large commercial aircraft. (g) To ensure the long term ability of the County to implement an airport system master plan consistent with the Draft Airport System Master Plan and related documents described and analyzed in EIR 573 including any noise mitigation or operational measure that is adopted by the Board as part of the decision to approve the Airport System Master Plan. 3. Clarification of scope of improvements to be analyzed in Alternatives A, B, and C - are they thinking about any runway extension, general aviation facility conversion, new parking areas, remote terminal (City of Irvine concept) etc. We probably want to minimize discussion (in the EIR) of discrete improvements to the airfield. 4. The "No Project" alternative. The CEQA Guidelines (copy attached) state that when the project is a revision of a "regulatory plan" the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan... into the future." Accordingly, we should look at two varieties (maybe three) of the "no project' alternative - one assuming continuation of those restrictions that would remain in place subject to some affirmative board action (such as curfew and GANG) and one assuming continuation of all settlement agreement restrictions (our original proposal) and maybe one assuming modification of the curfew or the GANG. 5. Consultant selection — Vince for Noise; Terry for Traffic and we discuss the rest. The key selections are land use and air quality and we need to make sure that the consultants selected are competent. Kathleen Brady as a master consultant also Andi Culbertson and Christine Huard - Spencer. 6. Work -scopes — keep it simple and include timelines that ensure prompt document preparation. 7. Scoping —we need to discuss the process of communicating with especially with the FAA/Air Carriers/Corridor Cities and ETRPA. 8. Trade -out — consider as a mitigation measure to the expansion of the 65 CNEL. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE JWA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESTRICTIONS ID D Task Name Duration 2002 May Jun Jul I AugSe Oct Nov Dec Jan 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION 7.33 days 0 PUBLISH NOP 0 mins RESPONSES TO NOP 30 edays CONSULTING CONTRACTS 0 days Q LEAD 0 days NOISE 0days Q TRAFFIC - 0 days 0 AIR QUALITY 0 days EIR 53.33 days PREPARE DRAFT EIR 107 edays PUBLISH DRAFT EIR 0 days PUBLIC REVIEW 45 edays COMMENTS DUE - 0 days RESPOND TO COMMENTS 30 edays RESPONSES TO AGENCIES 10 edays PREPARE FINAL EIR 15 edays COMMISIONS' APPROVALS 17 edays 0 CERTIFY FINAL EIR 0 daysI. 12 ♦ 06M9 9 - 79 19 19 0/04 1/18 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Project: Outline Date: 05/29/01 Task Summary ^ Rolled Up Progress Split Rolled Up Task Eztemal Tasks „ Progress Rolled Up Split Project Summary Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Milestone Q Page 1 Draft Project Description for Proposed Amendment of the JWA Settlement Agreement The following is a description of a project that involves proposed amendments to the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement (Agreement). In addition to the information required by Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project description summarizes the key provisions of the Agreement and the modifications to the Agreement (Amendments) that are to be evaluated pursuant to the CEQA (Project). 1. Project Location John Wayne Airport (JWA) is located on approximately 470 acres of land bounded generally by the 405 Freeway (North), MacArthur Blvd. and Campus Drive (East), Bristol Ave. (South) and Airway Drive (West). A map showing the precise location of JWA is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Project Objectives The Project objectives are: (a) To maintain the quality of life of the residents affected by aircraft operations at JWA. (b) To preserve the value of the residential property and commercial property impacted by aircraft operations at JWA. (c) To provide for additional facilities that could enhance the capacity of JWA to an extent consistent with the preservation of property values and the quality of life in communities directly impacted by JWA operations. (d) To ensure that the vehicular traffic (generated by air transportation demand) that is distributed to JWA (as opposed to other regional airports) can be adequately accommodated by the circulation system in the vicinity of the airport. (e) To modify existing restrictions on commercial air carrier operations to increase capacity without any adverse impact on airport safety. (f) To protect the biological resources in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve that is immediately south of the airport and directly under the standard instrument departure procedure utilized by large commercial aircraft. 3. Existing Conditions/Agreement The key provisions of the Agreement that are relevant to the project can be summarized as follows: (a) The terminal is limited to approximately 338,000 square feet with no more than 14 loading bridges for commercial jet aircraft and two gates for commuter aircraft. (b) Three categories of commercial aircraft are established with each category based on noise levels measured at departure monitoring stations. The three categories are Class A (no more than 101 SENEL at RMS 1 and 2), Class AA (no more than 95 SENEL at RMS 1 and 2) and Class E (no more than 93 SENEL at RMS 1 and 2); (c) During Phase 2 (from 1990 to 2005) the average daily departures (ADD) of Class A aircraft are limited to 39 and Class AA ADD are limited to 34. The Agreement does not establish any Class E ADD limits. (d) The service level limit is 8.4 million annual passengers per plan year (4/1 through 3/31). (e) The air carrier curfew that was in effect (as a County ordinance) in 1985 may not be amended without the consent of the City, the Airport Working Group (AWG) and Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON). 4. Project Components The Project involves Amendments to the Agreement that would extend (to different dates depending on the subject) the term while providing for an increase in capacity upon satisfaction of certain conditions and the immediate relaxation of certain restrictions. The Project consists of Amendments to the Agreement that would: (a) Ensure that the Board of Supervisors does not modify the existing 2 curfew without the consent of the City of Newport Beach. (b) Specifically authorize the planning, permitting and eventual construction of four (4) additional gates well as an increase concession/retail space in the terminal. (c) Modify existing the existing restrictions on noise regulated departures to reclassify the 34 Class AA ADD to Class A ADD while maintaining the overall limit of 73 Class A ADD. (d) Authorize, when the four additional gates are operational, an increase in noise regulated departures from 73 A ADD to 85 A ADD and immediately increase seat capacity to correspond to an increase from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP. (e) Specifically authorize the cargo operations that have been permitted pursuant to interim stipulations of the parties to the Agreement, with the operations to occur as authorized and conditioned by Board action in certifying EIR_. (f) Require the consent of the City of Newport Beach to any proposed modification of the Class A and Class E noise levels prior to January 1, 2026. (g) Consider the impacts of a reduction in Class A noise levels if, and to the extent legally permissible, the County and air carriers could agree on a plan that would allow the "phase -out' of aircraft in the higher range of the Class A noise levels (such as the MD-80) for an increase in ADD by aircraft in the lower range of the Class A noise levels (such as the B737-700). (h) Preserve the existing general aviation noise ordinance and existing GA facilities until 1/1/2021. (1) Establish January 1, 2016 as the date on which the County can commence any capacity enhancing modifications to the JWA Master Plan or the airport layout plan (modifications to the master plan or airport layout plan necessary to comply with FAA regulations or to preserve or enhance safety can be initiated at any time). 5. Scoping/Early Public Consultation The City of Newport Beach and County of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pursuant to which the parties commit to engage in a course of communication with various agencies and entities known or believed to have a direct or indirect interest in the Project. The Parties to the MOU shall ensure that they will consult, early and often with these agencies and entities in an effort to obtain input on the Project, the scope of the environmental document and other issues related to the Project FINAL TEXT - CEQA Guidelines Revisions: October 26, 1998 http://ceres.ca.gov/theme/env_law/ceqa/rev/final_102698.html (e) "No project" alternative. (B) If the proiect is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a 31 of 55 12/10/98AI5 PM FINIAL TEXT - CEQA Guidelines Revisions: October 26, 1998 http://ceres.ca.gov/theme/env—law/ceqa/rev/final-102698.htnl are general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context) and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of of voleta vaney v. rjoara or zupervisol Our Residential Environment v. City of (2) Alternative locations. 32 of 55 12/10/98.4:15 PM Date NOTICE OFYPUBLIC ��HEAR,)1ING �Copi SentTTo: o: pp yor U.S. Department of Transportation — Federal Aviation AdminiRUZ I V E a Council Member City of Los Angelesr California —Los Angeles World Airports Manager ❑ Attorney DRAFT MASTER PLAN 'O1 MAY l ti A 8 :31 El --DRAFT-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 — — LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OC CITY 0O THE H CI T BEACH FOursuant-to-Section 509(b)(6) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended [49 CFR Section 47106(c)(1)(A)j, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Transportation — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) intend to hold three concurrent Public Hearings regarding environmental studies addressing proposed improvements at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The Public Hearings will be held to afford interested parties the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft LAX Master Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the purpose of considering the environmental, economic, and social effects of the development and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been carried out by the community. NO DECISIONS ON THE PROJECT WILL BE MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 2001 from 12:00 Tistart at 12 noon, Pacific Daylight Time, at each location. The first two-hour secment of the Public at each location. The public will be invited to speak at each location from 2:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Written comments may be submitted anytime during the Public Hearings or as otherwise indicated below. LOCATIONS: FURAMA HOTEL LOS ANGELES THE PAVILION AT HOLLYWOOD PARK MANHATTAN BEACH MARRIOTT 8601 Lincoln Boulevard 3883 West Century Blvd. 1400 Parkview Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90045 Inglewood, CA 90303 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 670-8111 (310) 330-2841 (310) W-7511 PROPERTY INVOLVED: LAX is located in the western portion of the City of Los Angeles and generally bounded by Westchester Parkway and Arbor Vitae on the north; La Cienega Boulevard on the east; Imperial Highway on the south and Pershing Drive on the West. PROJECT PROPOSAL: On January 18, 2001, the FAA and the City of Los Angeles, as lead agencies, along with the Federal Highway Administration, as a cooperating agency, published a joint Draft EIS/EIR for the proposed LAX Master Plan. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR appeared in the Federal Registeron Friday, February 2, 2001. The public will have a total of 180-days to review the document. The public comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on Wednesday, July 25, 2001. LAX MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES - The Draft EIS/EIR analyzes the following alternatives: Alternative "A" would add a new runway to the north airfield. The existing northern runways would be relocated to Increase the lateral spacing between all three runways. The improvements included in Alternative A would enable LAX to accommodate approximately 98 Million Annual Passengers (MAP), 4.2 Million Annual Tons (MAT) of cargo and approximately 2,700 daily flights by 2015.- Alternative "B" would add a new runway to the south airfield. The existing southern runways would be relocated north to increase the lateral spacing between all three runways. Completion of the improvements included in Alternative B would allow LAX to accommodate approximately 98 MAP, 4.2 MAT of cargo and approximately 2,700 daily flights by 2015. Alternative "C" would not add any runways to the airfield. The northernmost runway would be relocated and the southernmost north airfield runway would be lengthened to accommodate larger aircraft. Completion of the Project Objectives (a) To maintain the quality of life of the residents affected by aircraft operations at JWA. (b) To preserve the value of the residential property and commercial property impacted by aircraft operations at JWA. (c) To provide for additional facilities that could enhance the capacity of JWA to an extent consistent with the preservation of property values and the quality of life in communities directly impacted by JWA operations. (d) To ensure that the vehicular traffic (generated by air transportation demand) that is distributed to JWA (as opposed to other regional airports) can be adequately accommodated by the circulation system in the vicinity of the airport. (a) To modify existing restrictions on commercial air carrier operations to increase capacity without any adverse impact on airport safety. (f) To protect the water quality and biological resources in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve that is immediately south of the airport and directly under the standard instrument departure procedure utilized by large commercial aircraft. (g) To ensure the long term ability of the County to implement an airport system master plan consistent with the Draft Airport System Master Plan and related documents described and analyzed in EIR 573 including any noise mitigation or operational measure that is adopted by the Board as part of the decision to approve the Airport System Master Plan. ��> pie ., .sue.--- 1- tl el� eft. Improvements included in this alternative would allow LAX to accommodate approximately 89 MAP, 4.2 MAT of cargo and 2,300 daily flights by 2015. For Alternatives A, B, and C, there are several common improvements: • Construct a new west entrance and terminal with additional aircraft gates, rental car facilities and parking • Construct a people mover connecting the new parking facilities and the new west terminal to new concourses and all other terminals • Create an LAX Expressway originating at the San Diego (1-405) Freeway and connecting to an airport ring road that accesses terminals and cargo areas Extend the light rail Green Line directly into LAX • Improve the taxiway/taxilane system on both the north and south airfields Construct new internal roadways and cargo facilities • Build out the vacant area in the northernmost portion of LAX with a new development called Westchester Southside, containing 2.6 million square feet of mixed uses to benefit the residents of Westchester and to accommodate the retail, office, light industrial, and educational uses displaced by the land acquisition program In accordance with the Presidents Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), a No Action/No Project Alternative has also been analyzed. The "No Action/No Project' Alternative assumes that no new improvements will be made at LAX before 2015, with the exception of certain projects that are already planned and approved at the airport. Capacity and operating constraints would allow for future annual passenger growth to approximately 79 MAP and the accommodation of approximately 3.1 MAT of cargo and approximately 2,279 daily flights by 2015. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT — Implementation of any of the "build" alternatives (i.e. Alternatives A, B, and C) is expected to result in some significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. As described in the Draft EIS/EIR, such impacts occur relative to the following topics: Noise; Land Use; Surface Transportation; Social Impacts; Air Quality; Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, Cultural and Paleontological Resources; Health Effects of Noise; Human Health and Safety; and Schools. Under the No Action/No Project Alternative, Impacts related to many of these, -and other, topics would be comparatively greater (worse) than those of the build alternatives. Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS/EIR provides complete analyses of the environmental impacts associated with the draft LAX Master Plan alternatives and identifies mitigation measures recommended to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21092.6, lists relating to hazardous waste have been consulted and listed sites have been identified at, and near, the location of the draft LAX Master Plan alternatives, and information regarding contamination at each site has been provided in Technical Report 13 of the Draft EIS/EIR. Section 4.23 of the Draft EIS/EIR addresses the relationship of such sites to the Master Plan alternatives and, as concluded therein, no significant impacts related to hazardous materials/wastes are expected to occur. Of the four alternatives considered, including the No Action/No Project Alternative, LAWA has identified Alternative "C" as Its Staff -Preferred Alternative. ACCESSIBILITY: As a covered entity under Title 11 of the American with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities. The Public Hearings and parking facilities are wheelchair accessible. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, and other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided if requested by 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, June 5, 2001, by calling Ms. Wade at (310) 646-7690. REVIEW OF PROJECT: The FAA and the City of Los Angeles encourage interested parties to review the Draft LAX Master Plan and Draft EIS/EIR and provide written comments on the Draft EIS/EIR by 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, Wednesday, July 25, 2001. Comments may be provided in any of four ways: (1) written comments submitted at the Public Hearings on June 9, 2001; (2) oral comments recorded by a court reporter at the June 9, 2001 Public Hearings; and written comments submitted to the following: (3) Mr. David B. Kessler, AICP or (4) Mr. Jim Ritchie U.S. Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles Federal Aviation Administration Los Angeles World Airports AWP-611.2 Master Plan Office P.O. Box 92007 P.O. Box 92216 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2216 All documents, including the Draft LAX Master Plan and Draft EIS/EIR and all technical reports and appendices, are available for review at the locations listed below. Review days and hours vary by location. Additionally, documents C referenced in the Draft EIS/EIR are available for review in the Public Reading Room at the Proud Bird Restaurant located at 11022 Aviation Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90045, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LIBRARIES Central Library Eagle Rock Branch Library Exposition Park Regional Francis Howard Goldwyn/ 630 W. Fifth Street 5027 Caspar Avenue Library Hollywood Regional Library Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90042 3665 S. Vermont Avenue 1623 N. Ivar Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90007 Hollywood, CA 90028 Mid -Valley Regional Library North Hollywood Regional San Pedro Regional Library Venice Branch Library 16244 Nordhoff Street Library 931 S. Gaffey Street 501 S. Venice Blvd. North Hills, CA 91343 5211 Tujunga Avenue San Pedro, CA 90731 Venice, CA 90003 North Hollywood, CA 91601 Westchester Branch Library West Los Angeles Regional West Valley Regional 8946 Sepulveda Eastway Library Library Westchester, CA 90045 11360 Santa Monica Blvd. 19036 Vanowen Street West Los Angeles, CA 90025 Reseda, CA 91335 OTHER LOCAL LIBRARIES Carson Library Claremont Library* Compton Library Culver City Library 150 E. 216'' Street 208 North Harvard Avenue 240 W. Compton Blvd. 4975 Overland Avenue Carson, CA 90745 Claremont, CA 91711 Compton, CA 90220 Culver City, CA 90230 El Monte Library* El Segundo Library Gardena Mayme Dear Hacienda Heights Library* 3224 Tyler Avenue 111 W. Mariposa Avenue Library* 16010 La Monde Street El Monte, CA 91731 El Segundo, CA 90245 1731 West Gardena Blvd. Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Gardena, CA 90247 Hawthorne Library Hermosa Beach Library Huntington Pairk Library* Inglewood Library 12700 Grevillea Avenue 555 Pier Avenue 6518 Miles Avenue 101 W. Manchester Blvd. Hawthorne, CA 90250 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Huntington Park, CA 90255 Inglewood, CA 90301 Lancaster Library* Lennox Library Lomita Library* Malibu Library* 601 W. Lancaster Boulevard 4350 Lennox Blvd. 24200 Narbonne Avenue 23519 West Civic Center Way Lancaster, CA 93534 Lennox, CA 90304 Lomita, CA 90717 Malibu, CA 90265 Manhattan Beach Library Marina del Rey Lloyd Taber Montebello Library* San Dimas Library* 1320 Highland Avenue Library* 1550 West Beverly Boulevard 145 North Walnut Avenue Manhattan Beach,CA 90266 4533 Admiralty Way Montebello, CA 90640 San Dimas, CA 91773 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 View Park Library* West Hollywood Library* Willowbrook Library Wiseburn Library* 3854 West 541h Street 715 North San Vicente 11838 Wilmington Avenue 5335 West 135v Street Los Angeles, CA 90043 Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90059 Los Angeles, CA 90059 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Woodcrest Library* 1340 West 106s' Street *Summary and CD-ROM set Los Angeles, CA 90044 AIRPORTS Los Angeles InYI Airport Ontario InYI Airport Palmdale Regional Airport Van Nuys Airport Proud Bird Restaurant Administration Building 39516 N. 25t' Street East 16461 Sherman Way, Ste. 300 11022 Aviation Blvd. Ontario, CA 91761 Palmdale, CA 93550 Van Nuys, CA 91406 Los Angeles, CA 90045 John Wayne Airport 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 OTHER LOCATIONS Federal Aviation Los Angeles County Clerk Los Angeles City Clerk South Bay Council of Administration EIR Desk 200 N. Main Street, Room 607 Governments Office of the Airports 12400 Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90012 3031 Torrance Blvd. Division Norwalk, CA 90650 Torrance, CA 90503 15000 Aviation Blvd. Hawthorne, CA 90261 The Draft EIS/EIR and Draft LAX Master Plan can also be viewed at www.laxmasterplan.or 8.6 ALTERNATIVE F: JWA — SHORT- TO LIMITED LONG -HAUL WITH LIMITED GENERAL AVIATION; NO AVIATION REUSE AT FORMER MCAS EL TORO This section presents the potential impacts of Alternative F as measured against the existing setting, as well as a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project at build out. In those instances in which the comparison of the alternative to the Proposed Project is materially affected by the phasing of the project, i.e., in those instances in which the impacts of the Proposed Project during the phasing years are materially different from those impacts at year 2020, a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project for the applicable phasing year is also provided. This alternative was selected for analysis because it has the potential to avoid significant unavoidable aircraft noise and aircraft air quality emission impacts at the El Toro site while still feasibly attaining some of the objectives of the Proposed Project. 8.6.1 Aviation Uses Under Alternative F, JWA would continue to provide short- and medium -haul domestic passenger service (with limited long -haul service), and there would be no aviation reuse at MCAS El Toro. JWA would also provide all -cargo service to short-, medium-, and limited long -haul destinations. JWA would not be constrained by existing limits on passengers or aircraft operations under this alternative. The airport would accommodate as much passenger demand as possible, estimated to be approximately 14 MAP in 2020, by expanding airport facilities to the extent possible within the existing airport property limits, approximately four percent (0.6 MAP) of which would be passengers with connecting flights. JWA is also forecast to annually handle approximately 180 thousand tons of domestic cargo. Alternative F would include 29 jet aircraft gates and 8 commuter aircraft gates, 19 Remain Overnight (RON) aircraft parking spaces, 13,820 vehicle parking spaces, and approximately 1.14 million square feet of terminal area. There would be minimal general aviation service at JWA, which would allow the airport to accommodate expanded commercial service. The general aviation runway would be closed. The main runway would' be extended from 5,700 feet to 6,800 feet. General aviation activity would be displaced to private or municipal airports in Orange County or other counties. Figure 8-6 depicts Alternative F. The environmental analysis of this alternative focuses on the impacts of the alternative at JWA. This alternative does not propose or include any physical changes at the El Toro site. However, if Alternative F were selected and implemented, it necessarily would result in the adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site, possibly one similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. To understand the full impacts of Alternative F along with the County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 15PR A ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative, for example, the reader should review the impacts of both alternatives as addressed in this section. 8.6.2 Nonaviation Revenue Support Uses Alternative F does not propose nonaviation uses at JWA and does not include any physical changes at the El Toro site. However, approval of Alternative F would lead to the adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site. 8,6.3 Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative will not meet the general project objectives for reuse of MCAS El Toro. Alternative F will also not meet the general aviation, existing land use restrictions, and General Plan implementation objectives. It will have a major adverse impact on general aviation as the more than 500 general aviation aircraft now at JWA would have to be relocated. Alternative F also does not encourage growth of service opportunities, and it does not implement the two airport system. This alternative will partially further the other aviation related objectives. 8.6.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative F 8.6.4.1 Land Use This alternative would have no land use impacts at the El Toro site since all development would occur at JWA. However, this alternative would have greater adverse land use impacts at JWA than the Proposed Project. Based on this analysis, the alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the project. JWA under Alternative F will serve almost twice as many commercial air passengers as are currently served at JWA. This will require a runway extension and facilities expansion. The JWA site is surrounded by business parks, light industrial uses, and airport serving businesses, which are compatible with intensified airport use at JWA, therefore; the intensification of on -site land uses associated with Alternative F will not have significant impact on adjacent off -site land uses. However, as a result of a larger 65 CNEL noise contour, this alternative will have a significant effect on existing residential uses compared to no significant effect under the Proposed Project (see Section 8.4.4.4). 8.6.4.2 General Plan Consistency This alternative would impact General Plan consistency issues at the El Toro site, although it would not raise General Plan issues with respect to JWA. Amendments to the County Noise Element and AELUP are not required for JWA because the new noise contours related to the increase in the aviation activity at JWA would be within the 1985 JWA Master Plan Altematives County of Orange EIR No. 573 8.126 8.7 ALTERNATIVE G: JWA —LIMITED INTERNATIONAL; NO AVIATION REUSE AT FORMER MCAS EL TORO This section presents the potential impacts of Alternative G as measured against the existing setting, as well as a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project at build out. In those instances in which the comparison of the alternative to the Proposed Project is materially affected by the phasing of the project, i.e., in those instances in which the impacts of the Proposed Project during the phasing years are materially different from those impacts at year 2020, a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project for the applicable phasing year is also provided. This alternative was selected for analysis because it has the potential to avoid aircraft noise and aircraft air quality emission impacts at the El Toro site while still feasibly attaining some of the objectives of the Proposed Project. 8.7.1 Aviation Uses ' In Alternative G, the former MCAS El Toro is assumed to be a nonaviation use and JWA provides short, medium, and long -haul domestic and international air passenger service for an estimated 25.0 MAP, nine percent (2.2 MAP) of which are passengers with connecting flights. JWA is also forecast to annually handle approximately 40.0 thousand tons of international cargo and 1.23 million tons of domestic cargo. JWA would not be constrained by existing limits on passengers or aircraft operations under this alternative, and it is assumed that the airport would accommodate all of the demand in these categories projected for the airport beyond 2005 (estimated to be approximately 25 MAP in 2020 as described in the ASMP). To enable the airport to handle this demand, a major program for the acquisition of property would be required. Property to be acquired would include existing developed property north of JWA, extending the airport boundary west to SR-55, and a triangular shaped area to the east bound by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street, and Jamboree Road. New runway facilities, terminal facilities, parking, cargo facilities, and support facilities would be necessary. The closure of the general aviation runway, a 2,300-foot extension to the main runway, and a new 6,700-foot runway are envisioned in this alternative to accommodate the projected demand. Alternative G would ' include 52 jet aircraft gates, 11 commuter aircraft gates, 29 RON aircraft parking spaces, 21,500 vehicle parking spaces, and 1.84 million square feet of terminal area (Figure 8-8 depicts Alternative G). There would be no aviation reuse of MCAS El Toro. Under this alternative, there would be no aviation reuse of MCAS El Toro. Accordingly, the environmental analysis of this alternative focuses on the impacts of the alternative at JWA. However, if Alternative G were selected and implemented, it would lead to adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site, possibly one similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative analyzed in Section 8.3. To understand the full impacts of Alternative G along County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8143 with the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative, for example, the reader should review the impacts of both alternatives as addressed in this section. 8.7.2 Nonaviation Revenue Support Uses Alternative G does not propose nonaviation uses at JWA and does not include physical changes at El Toro. However, as noted above, approval of Alternative G lead to the adoption of nonaviation uses at El Toro, possibly similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation PIan Alternative addressed in Section 8.3. @.7.3 Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative would not meet the general project objectives for reuse of MCAS El Toro. Alternative G will further most of the aviation related objectives, but not to the same extent as the Proposed Project. This alternative does not meet the general aviation objectives. It will have a major impact on general aviation as the more than 500 general aviation aircraft now at JWA would have to be relocated. This alternative will not meet the existing land use or General Plan implementation aviation objectives. This alternative does not encourage service opportunities such as international service, and this alternative does not implement the two airport system to avoid impacts of a single system. 8.7.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative G 8.7.4.1 Land Use This alternative would have no land use impacts at the MCAS El Toro site since development would occur at JWA. This alternative would have significant adall verse land use impacts at JWA. Under Alternative G, JWA would be expanded to accommodate 25 MAP, requiring the acquisition of a considerable amount of developed land outside the current property boundary. The land acquisition would occur primarily to the west, extending the JWA boundary to SR 55, and to the southeast, adding a large triangular shaped area south A Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard.of There are residential land uses west of SR 55, the western boundary of JWA under Alternative G. Alternative G proposes 60 acres of parking at JWA along SR 55. Parking lot lighting has the potential to be a significant impact to the nearby residential uses, if not appropriately mitigated. The residences would not be directly impacted by the airport expansion, as the existing freeway separates the two uses. JWA acquisition to the southeast under this alternative would include the addition of a triangular shaped area of land bound by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bristol Alternatives 8-lu County of Orange EIR No. 573 City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 May 25, 2001 *****ECRLOT** C-006 Jennifer Birmingham 409 Bayside Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Jennifer: The City of Newport Beach is working to extend the current "Airport Settlement Agreement" with Orange County in order to continue limiting airport operations and maintain the same basic restrictions that protect our city's property values and quality of life. The Airport Settlement Agreement In effect since 1985, the "Airport Settlement Agreement" will expire in four years -- on December 31, 2005. Currently, the agreement: 1. Limits the number of flights by noise classification (an average of 73 daily) 2. Limits terminal space to 338,000 square feet and the number of gates to 14 3. Places a curfew on commercial departures from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 4. Limits the number of commercial passengers to 8.4 million 5. Limits terminal parking spaces to 8,400 The Threat of Expanding John Wayne Airport Although the existing Airport Settlement Agreement does not expire for another four years, expanding operations at JWA is very real -- especially with the threat of a ballot measure to convert El Toro Marine Base into a park. If El Toro is not available as a commercial airport, we are concerned the Board of Supervisors will not extend the Airport Settlement Agreement and will expand John Wayne Airport to meet Orange County's growing air travel needs. Based on projections of future demand, expanded operations could mean significantly more flights in and out of the airport -- increasing traffic congestion, pollution and noise in our community. Extending the Airport Settlement Agreement An environmental impact statement (EIR) is needed to ... (over please) ... extend the airport settlement agreement. To move that process forward, the City Council proposed new terms for the extension. An important element of these new terms is the ability for the county to add four more gates to the airport. The City Council believes that extending the agreement will not be possible without some future small increase to JWA's capacity. On May 8, the County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to accept the city's proposed project to begin the EIR and evaluate the 20-year future impacts of the proposal on Newport Beach, surrounding cities and the county as a whole. Other, more onerous alternatives proposed by the county will also be addressed. Preparing the EIR - The county will direct the EIR process, with the city as a partner. And the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and air carriers will be influential parties as well. Understanding the need to address all parties' concerns and the threat of losing El Toro Marine Base as a viable option to meet the county's growing air travel needs, the City Council proposed the following terms to extend the Airport Settlement Agreement: 1. Maintain existing JWA curfews until January 2026 2. Allow the construction of four additional gates and service areas after 2005, which would accommodate up to 9.8 million commercial passengers 3. Maintain current general aviation uses Where We Go From Here Preparing the EIR does not automatically extend the Airport Settlement Agreement. It is only the first step in that process. The City Council understands that pressure to expand the John Wayne Airport risks our quality of life in Newport Beach. That's why the councils' top priorities are to build an airport at El Toro and extend the Airport Settlement Agreement. We'll keep you up to date on this and other important issues with future newsletters and reports. Your input is always welcome. Sincerely, Homer L. Bludau City Manager P.S. Please check the city's website for the latest information on JWA issues at www.jwalimits.org. I I I 0 0 I 7 3 4 5 6 7 . g 9 10 11 lE 13 14 15I 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,22 23 24 25 26i 27 "14 14:13 V019 431 9512 i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA uw37 COUNTY OF ORANGE, ) NO. CV 85-1542 TJH (MCY) P].ainxi£f, ) ' 3 V. ) ) AIR CALIFORNIA, at al., ) DeEendants. ) ) CITY OV NEWPORT BEACH, ) a Municipal Corporation, ) ) Counterclaimant, ) V. ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY ) BOARD OV SUPERVISORSF and DOES 1 ) through 1.000, Inclusive, ) Counterdefendants. ) AND RELATED ACTIONS } STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF` FINAL JUDGMENT BY CERTAIN SFTTUING PARTIES FY111AIT A 1 2 3 Fi I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 I. BASIS FOR STIPULATION 1. The County of Orange ("County"), the City of Newport Beach ("City"), Stop Polluting Our Newport ("SPON"), and the Airport Working Group of orange County, Inc. ("AWG") (herein- after collective referred to as "the settling parties"), by•their respective counsel of record, enter into this stipulation to implement the settlement of the longstanding dispute between the settling parties concerning the development and operation of John Wayne Airport (",WA"). The Judgment to be entered pursuant to this stipulation would (1) adjudicate that EIR 508/EIS is legally adequate for the "EIR 506/EIS Project" (as that term is hereafter defined) under the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and all relevant state and federal implementing regulations; and (2) provide for enforcement of certain specific aspects of 'the settlement agreement of the parties in respect of, or related to the controversies among them regarding the development and operation of JWA (and agreed upon limitations regarding such development and operation) through the year 2005. 2. The compromise settlement reached by the settling parties reflects, under all of the circumstances, the individual Judgments of the settling parties regarding an appropriate or acceptable balance between demand for air travel services in Orange County and any adverse environmental effects associated with the operation of JWA. Recognizing that JWA is incapable of satisfying the demand for air travel in Orange County, this settlement is also designed to permit studies regarding the 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 271 281 i possible future development of an additional airport to serve Orange County. The settling parties acknowledge that, without this settlement and Judgment, protracted litigation would continue and create a continuing risk both of impeding or -preventing the County's development of JWA, and its ability to' create additional access opportunities for commercial operators desiring to use JWA. 3. Other provisions of the settling parties' agree- ment will not be embodied in the Judgment. Those provisions include the actions undertaken by the County in connection with the adoption of Resolution Nos. 85-1231, 85-1232 and 85-1233 concerning certification of EIR 508, adoption of additional mitigation measures,, and additional airport site studies in Orange County, and the parties' "dismissal of other litigation concerning JWA. These provisions also include a resolution of the City of Newport Beach (Resolution 85-67). The parties , acknowledge that each of the undertakings in the referenced resolutions represent a material part of the consideration pertaining to this settlement. 4. In reaching this settlement, the settling parties have considered operational and other factors applicable to John Wayne Airport which may not be applicable to any other airport. This stipulation is site specific to JWA, premised upon its unique history, operational characteristics and limitations, and shall not be deemed applicable to any other airport. 3 t 1 Al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S. Not all of the parties to this litigation have agreed to the terms of this settlement. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment to be entered pursuant to this Stipulation is a final judgment only as to the claims between the settling parties. 6. This stipulation and judgment is not intended to, and shall not, create any rights in favor of any persons other than the settling parties. I2. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Stipulation and Judgment, the terms below are defined as follows: 7. "ADD" means "average daily departure," which is computed on an annual basis, from April 1 of each year to March 31 of the following year ("the Plan Year"). One ADD is equal to 365 departures by Class A or Class AA aircraft during each Plan Year (or 366 departures in any "leap year"), subject to any adjustments which may result from the implementation or enforce- ment of any County regulation for JWA or this Judgment (except that rio ADD shall consist of more departures in a Plan Year than there. are days in that year) . "ADD" includes all Gass A or Class AA departures, except emergency or mercy flights, depar- tures resulting from mechanical failures, emergency or weather diversions to JWA necessary to reposition an aircraft into its normal scheduling rotation, the repositioning of aircraft to another airport in connection with a published change in the, 3 1 previous schedule of operations of the airline, test or demon- 2 stration flights authorized in advance by the airport manager, or 3 charter flights by persons not engaged in regularly scheduled 4 commercial service at JWA. 5 6 8. "Class'A Aircraft" means aircraft which: 7 (a) are used in regularly scheduled commercial 8 service at JWA; and 9 (b) generate actual energy average SENEL levels, 10 averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, as measured at the 11 Criterion Monitoring Stations, which are not greater than the 12 following values: 13 14 M1: 98.5 dB SENEL 15 M6: 100.0 dB SENEL 16 M7: 100.0 dB SENEL 17 18 In determining whether an aircraft is a Class A 19 aircraft, its noise performance at the Criterion Noise Monitoring 20 Stations shall be determined at each individual station. An 21 aircraft must meet each of the monitoring station criteria, 22 without "trade-offs," in order to qualify as a Class A aircraft. 23 The existing Departure Noise Monitoring Stations will be kept in 24 operation and in good repair during the Project Period, and 25 test procedures for determination of Class A, Class AA, and 26 Exempt Aircraft shall be no less stringent than those provided 27 for in the County's commercial airline access plan in effect 28 on August 1, 1985. During the•Project Period, quarterly noise 4 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1� reports and all test data concerning aircraft classification qualification tests at JWA shall be prepared and maintained as public records. . 9. "Class AA Aircraft" means aircraft, other than Exempt Aircraft,'which: .(a) are used in regularly scheduled commercial service at JWA; and (b) generate actual energy averaged SENEL levels, averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, which are not greater than 89.5 dB SENEL at an Departure Noise Monitoring Station. In determining whether an aircraft is a Class AA aircraft, its noise performance at the Departure Noise Monitoring Stations shall be determined at each individual station. An aircraft must meet each of the Departure Noise Monitoring Station criteria, without "trade-offs," in order to qualify as a Class AA aircraft. 10. "Commercial Air Carrier" means any person which operates regularly scheduled commercial service into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers or freight, or for any other regularly scheduled commercial purpose. 11. °Commuter Air carrier" means any person which operates. regularly scheduled commercial service into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers or freight, or for any other regularly scheduled commercial purpose, with aircraft t M 1 1 2 1 which, under the definitions and limitations of this stipulation 2 and Judgment, do not require an allocation of ADDS for their 3 operation at JWA (i.e., "Exempt Aircraft"). 4 5 12. "Criterion Noise ,Monitoring Stations" means those 6 noise monitoring stations of the JWA noise monitoring system at 7 the location of monitoring stations M6, M7 and M1 as of August 1, g 1985. 9 10 13. "Departure Lounge Holding Area" means interior 11 square footage adjacent to an air carrier or commuter gate within 12 a "secure holding area" that is designed to be used as a seating 13 lounge or waiting area in connection with arriving and departing 14 flights. "Departure Lounge Holding Area" does not mean, for 15 purposes of this stipulation and Judgment, any common passage 16 areas in a secure holding area intended to allow the public to 17 achieve access to a Departure Lounge Holding Area, or any other 18 public space in a secure holding area which is devoted to public 19 purposes other than a seating lounge or waiting area. 20 21 14. "Departure Noise Monitoring Stations" means those 22 noise monitoring stations of the JWA noise monitoring system at 23 the location of JWA monitoring stations M61 M7, MI, M2, M3 and M8 24 as of August 1, 1985. 25 26 15. "EIR 508/EIS Project" means that certain "project" 27 including related plans for development, activities and other 28 related elements and approvals which are collectively defined and 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 mitigated by County EIR 508, Board of Supervisors' Resolutions 85-255 through 85-258 and the related resolutions 85-239 and 85-260, all adopted an February 26, 1985, Board of Supervisors' Resolution 85-387 (March 20, 1985), and Board of Supervisors' Resolutions 85•-1231 through 85-1233. It also includes all processing and approvals, and contemplated activities considered by the Federal Aviation Administration in its consideration and approval of the•EIR 508 documentation as an Environmental Impact Statement prepared, circulated, considered and approved under the National Environmental Policy Act. The term also includes the terms of this stipulation and the Stipulated Judgment.. 16. "Exempt Aircraft" means any aircraft used in regularly scheduled commercial service at JWA which, when measured by actual energy averaged SENEL levels during any Noise Compliance Period, does not exceed 86.0 dB SENEL on departure at any of the Departure Monitoring Stations. 17. "MAP" means million annual passengers, consisting of the sum of actual deplaning and enplaning passengers served by all commercial and Commuter Air Carriers at JWA during each Plan Year. 18. "Noise Compliance Period" means each calendar quarter during the Project Period. 19. "Phase I" means the period from February 26, 1985, to the date on which Phase II•begins. 7 I 20. "Phase II" means the period that begins on April 2 1, 1990, or the date on which the County records a notice of 3 completion on the new commercial passenger terminal, whichever is 4 later, and ends on December 31, 2005.. 5 6 21. "Plan Year" means each period during the Project- 7 Period, from April 1 of one-year to March 31 of the following 8 year. 9 10 22. "Project Period" means the period from February 11 26, 1985 to December 31; 2005. 12 � 13 23. "Regulated ADDS" means average daily departures 14 during a Plan Year by Class A.and Class AA aircraft operated by 15 Commercial Air Carriers. 16 17 III. STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMEgT 18 In recognition and consideration of the foregoing recitals 19 and 'definitions, the settling parties stipulate to the entry c_ 20 Judgment that contains the terms stated below. 21 22 A. Adeauacv of EIR 508/EIS 23 24 24. Judgment may be entered by the Court on the 25 County's First Amended Complaint for. Declaratory and Injunctive 26 Relief, and the Counterclaims of the City, SPON, and AWG, 27 adjudicating that EIR SOS/EIS is legally adequate and complete 28 under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cali- 8 1 2; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E fornia Public Resources Code Section 21000 et se .), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.Admin.Code Section 13000 et sea.), the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") (42 U.S.C. Section 4321 = sect.) and all relevant federal implementing regulations with respect to the EIR 508/EIS Project, including, but not limited to, implementation of the physical facilities improve- ments, airport layout plan, land use plans, and aircraft operat- ion's and NAP levels permitted by the project. To the extent that the County's First Amended Complaint, or the counterclaims in this action by the City, SPON and the AWG, raise any controver- sies other than the adequacy of EIR 508/EIS under the provisions of CEQA, NEPA and all relevant implementing regulations, such claims and controversies shall be dismissed without prejudice. 25. Each settling party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in connection with this litigation. B. Flight and MAP Limits 26. During Phase I, there shall be a maximum of 55 ADDS by Class A and Class AA aircraft (regardless of whether or not the County has specifically allocated any such ADbs to any Commercial Air Carrier). No aircraft generating noise levels greater than that permitted for Class A aircraft shall be permit- ted to engage in regularly scheduled commercial service at JWA. Of the 55 ADDs permitted during Phase I, no more than 39 ADDs may be by Class A aircraft. a P 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16! 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27. During Phase I, JWA shall serve no more than 4.75 MAP during any Plan Year. 28. During Phase II, there shall be a maximum of 73 ADDS by Class A and Class AA aircraft (regardless ,of whether or not the County has specifically allocated any such ADDS to any. Commercial Air Carrier). No aircraft generating- noise levels greater than that permitted for Class A aircraft shall be permit- ted to engage in regularly scheduled commercial service at JWA. Of the 73 ADDS permitted during Phase II, no more than 39 ADDS may be by Class A aircraft. 29. During Phase II, JWA shall serve no more than 8.4 MAP during any Plan Year. C. Facilities Constraints 30. Paragraphs 31 through 35, below, contain agree- ments of the County on the maximum permissible size of certain facilities improvements related to the proposed commercial passenger terminal to be developed as part of the EIR 508/EIS Project (and reducing the capacity of certain other related facilities) that can be made at JWA through the end of Phase II. .31. During the Project Period, John Wayne Airport shall have a commercial passenger terminal with a maximum interior floor space consisting of areas which are leaseable to W= 10 1 tenants, or common areas available for public use and access, of 2 not more than 271,000 square feet. This interior floor space i 3 restriction does not include, and does not apply to space 4 utilized for airport administration areas, "mechanical/electrical 5 areas," "structural areas," or "terminal curb areas." The total 6 terminal size, including the "mechanical/electrical areas" and 7 "structural areas", but excluding any "terminal curb area," may 8 not exceed 337,900 square feet. 9 10 32. During Phase II, no building at Jim, other than 11 the commercial passenger terminal, or buildings leased to Fixed 12 Based Operators with limited commuter operations, shall- be used 13 by Commercial or Commuter Air Carriers for passenger or cargo 14 handling activities. 15 16 33'. Any Departure Lounge Holding Area designed to 17 serve a loading bridge in the terminal shall be designed for 18 use in connection with only one loading bridge. Each such 19 Departure Lounge Holding Area shall have a physical separation 20 from any other such Departure Lounge Holding Area with a perman- 21 ent fixture barrier not less than 36 inches high. The commercial 22 passenger terminal shall contain a maximum of 37,000 interior 23 square feet for all Departure -Lounge Holding Areas. 24 25 34. There may be a maximum of fourteen (14) loading 26 bridges, of which no more than nine (9) may be sized for aircraft 27 as large as the Boeing-767. The remaining five (3) loading 28 bridges shall be designed foi aircraft no larger than the Boeing • 11 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 757 aircraft. Each loading bridge may serve no more than one flight at a time. 35. There may be a maximum of 8,400 parking spaces, not including spaces contained in the existing North Clear Zone Parking Facility. The terminal parking structure may have no more than four levels. Space devoted to parking may not be converted to other terminal uses. D. Other Stipulated Provisions 36. Consistent with its existing or to be assumed obligations under contractual agreements with the United States , i of America under provisions of the Airport and Airway Develop- ment Act of 1970 (as amended) (former 49 U.S.C. Section 1701 It sea.) or the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. Section 2201 et sect.), the County shall establish and maintain a rate and fee structure which will ensure that the operation of JWA will be self-supporting during the Project Period. ' Except for short-term borrowing in order to alleviate temporary cash flow problems, or other emergency needs, the County will not use its general funds to subsidize directly the construction or routine operation of JWA. (This limitation recognizes that in the ordinary course of the County's business, certain County staff and personnel engage in activities supported by general funds which may indirectly relate to the operation of JWA. It is not the purpose or effect of this stipulation to preclude the County from continuing such general fund supported 12 ,t I d I 1 activities Which are incidental to the routine operation of the 2 airport.) Nothing in this paragraph, or this stipulation, is 3 intended to, nor shall it be construed as, making the settling 4 parties (other than the County), or any other person, parties 5 to, or third party beneficiaries of, any contractual agreements 6 between the County, as airport proprietor of TWA, and the United 7 States of America (or any of its agencies). 8 9 37. The existing curfew regulations and hours for JWA, 10 contained in County Ordinance 3503, and the provisions of 11 paragraph 4 at page 62 of Board of Supervisor's Resolution 85-253 12 (February 26, 1985), reducing the curfew exemption threshold to 13 86.0 dB SENEL, shall remain in effect during the Project Period; 14 except that the County shall retain its full discretion to exte-- - 15 the curfew hours. Nothing in this paragraph precludes or 16 prevents the JWA Airport Manager, his designated representative, 17 or some other person designated by the 'Board of Supervisors from 18 exercising reasonable discretion in authorizing a regularly 19 scheduled commercial departure or landing during the curfew hours 20 where: (1) such arrival or departure was scheduled to occur 21 outside of the curfew hours; and (2) the arrival or departure has 22 been delayed because of mechanical problems, weather or air 23 traffic control delays, or other reasons beyond the control of 24 the commercial operator. In addition, this paragraph does not 25 prohibit authorization of bona fide emergency or mercy flights 26 during the curfew hours by aircraft which would otherwise be 27 regulated by the curfew provisions and limitations. 28 13 � T 1 38. In mitigation of the EIR 508/EIS Project, and for 2 other reasons, the County has adopted a "General Aviation Noise 3 Ordinance', (11GANO11) (County Ordinance 3505). The principal 4 policy objective of the GANG is to exclude from operations at MIA 5 general aviation aircraft which generate noise levels greater 6 than the noise levels permitted for aircraft used by Commercial 7 Air Carriers. During the Project Period, the County shall 8 maintain in effect an ordinance which meets this basic policy 9 objective. Nothing in this stipulation precludes the County from 10 amending the GANG to enhance or facilitate its reasonable 11 achievement of its principal purpose, or the effective enforce- 12, ment of its provisions. 13 14 39. During the Project Period, the City, SPON, AWG, 15 their agents, attorneys, officers, elected officials and employ- 16 ees agree that they will not challenge, impede or contest, by or 17 in connection with litigation, or any adjudicatory administrative 18 proceedings, or other action, the funding, implementation or 19 operation of the EIR 5081EIS Project by the County and the United j 20 States;. nor will they urge other persons to do so, or cooperate 21 in any such efforts 'by other parties except as may be expressly 22 required by law. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the 23 settling parties from submitting comments or presenting testimony 24 upon any future environmental documentation which may be prepared 25 by the County; or from challenging any project which is not part 26 of the EIR 508/EIS Project. 27 28 14 5 61 7 8' 9' 10'I 11! 12 13 14 15'I 16 17 18' 19' 201', 21, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40. The Board of Supervisors shall not arbitrarily withhold approval, endorsement or support of any application by a qualified entity or consortium of entities submitted pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution 85-1231 which seeks a reasonable level of state or federal funding for a study or studies concern- ing a site for an additional airport to supplement JWA. 41. During the Project Period, the City agrees that it will, at its expense, actively join the County in defending, in any pending or future litigation, the EIR 508/EIS Project or the County's regulations or actions in implementation of, or enforc- ing limitations upon, the project. 1 42. It is specifically acknowledged by the parties that the County has received a request by PSA to operate exempt aircraft in regularly scheduled service at JWA, and may receive other such 'r--auests in the fut.=e. The County intencs in the near future to develop amendments to its existing access plan or other airport regulations to provide for a means to allocate exempt aircraft operating opportunities within the IMAP level agreed to in this stipulation. The development and'implementa- tion of such regulatory mechanisms is expressly acknowledged to be an element of the implementation of the EIR 5081EIS Project, and no additional or further environmental documentation under CEQA or NEPA shall be necessary to allow the County to develop and process such regulations and applications. N 0 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. Any notices given under this stipulation shall be addressed to the parties as follows: FOR THE COUNTY• Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel Office of the County Counsel 10 Civic Center -Plaza P.O. Box 1379 Santa Ana, California 92702 with a copy to: Michael Scott Gatzke Gatzke, Lodge & Mispagel 2890 Pio Pico P.O. Box 1636 Carlsbad, California, 92008 FOR THE CITY• City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 with a copy to: Pierce O'Donnell O'Donnell & Gordon 619 South Olive, Ste. 300 Los Angeles, California 90014 FOR SPON AND AWG• E. Clement Shute, Jr. -Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger 396 Hayes Street San Francisco, California 94102 At any time, any party may change the person designated to receive notices under this stipulation by giving written notice of such change to the other parties. ti.V I im u 1 IV. ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT 2 44. The stipulations in the other pending state and 3 federal litigation matters pending among the settling parties 4 shall not be filed until the entry of the Stipulated Judgment 5 authorized by this stipulation. 6 7 45. If a dispute arises concerning interpretation 8 of, or a settling party's compliance with, this Judgment, and if 9 no exigent circumstances require immediate court proceedings, any 10 settling party raising such issue of interpretation or compliance 11 shall provide written notice of such dispute to the other 12 settling parties.. Within twenty-one (21) days of the sending of 13 such notice, the parties shall meet in person (or by their 14 authorized representatives) and attempt in good faith to resolve 15 the dispute. 16 17 46. If any such dispute has not been resolved within 18 thirty-five (35) days of the sending of written notice, or 19 if exigent circumstances require immediate court proceedings, any 21 action. A settling party seeking to compel another settling 22 party to obey the Judgment must file a Motion to Enforce Judg- 23 ment. The settling parties agree not to resort to, request, or 24 initiate proceedings involving the contempt powers of the, Court 25 in connection with a Motion to Enforce Judgment.. 26 27 47. If the Court determines that a party is not 28 complying with the Judgment, the Court shall issue an order, in 17 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 the nature of specific performance of the Stipulated Judgment, requiring the defaulting party to comply with the Judgment within a reasonable period of time. If the defaulting party thereafter fails to comply with such an order, the other settling parties may then seek enforcement under any authorized processes of the Court. V. TERM OF AGREEMENT 48. This stipulation is contingent upon the Court's entry of the Judgment pursuant to this stipulation ("the Stipul- ated Judgment"). If the. Stipulated Judgment is not entered, this stipulation shall be null and void, and shall not be admissible for any purpose. Unless terminated at an earlier date In the manner described in paragraphs 49-51 below, this stipulation and Stipulated Judgment shall be effective for the Project Period. 49. The City, SPON or the AWG may file a Motion to Vacate Judgement if, in any action which they have not initiated: (a) Any trial court enters a final judgment which determines that the limits on the number of Regulated ADDS, Class A ADDs, the distinction between Class A and Class AA aircraft, MAP levels or facilities improvem- ents contained in -this stipulation, the curfew provi- sions of paragraph 37 of this stipulation, or the provisions of paragraph 38 of this stipulation are unenforceable for any reason, and the any of these Y 1 18 1 stipulated limitations are exceeded; 2 3 (b) Any trial court issues a preliminary injunc- 4 tion which has the effect of precluding implementation 5 or enforcement of the limits on the number of Regulated 6 ADDs, Class A ADDS, the distinction between Class A and 7 Class AA aircraft, MAP levels or facilities improve- 8 ments contained in this stipulation, the curfew 9 provisions of paragraph 37 of this stipulation or the 10 provisions of paragraph 38 of this stipulation, based 11 upon a finding of a probability of making at trial any Ii 12 of the determinations described in subparagraph (a) 13 above, and such preliminary injunction remains in 14 effect for a period of one (1) year or more, and any of i 15 these stipulated limitations are exceeded; or 16 17 (c)' Any appellate court issues a decision or 18 order which makes any of the determinations described 19 in subparagraphs (a) or (b) •above, or affirms a trial 20 court ruling based upon such a determination, and any 21 of these stipulated limitations are exceeded. 22 23 50. The County may file a Motion to Vacate Judgment if 24 the City fails to comply with the provisions of paragraph 41 of 25 this stipulation, or either the City, SPON or the AWG file or 26 participate in a lawsuit or adjudicatory administrative proceed- 27 ing, or assist another person in any such lawsuit or proceeding, 28 for the purpose, or to the effect of impeding implementation of 19 3 1 the EIR 5081EIS Project or otherwise take action in violation of 2 paragraph 39 of this stipulation.- This provision shall not apply 3 to activities expressly permitted by paragraph 39 of this 4 stipulation. 5 6 51. Pursuant to Rule 60(b)' of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure, the Court shall, after consideration of a motion 8 to vacate judgment, enter an order vacating the Stipulated 9 Judgment if it determines that any of the conditions described in 10 paragraphs 49 or 50 have occurred. Once vacated, the Judgment 11 and this stipulation shall be null and void, unenforceable and 12 inadmissible for any purpose, and the parties will be deemed to 13 be in the same position that they occupied before the Stipulated 14 Judgment and stipulation was executed and entered in respect of 15 this litigation, and they shall have the full scope of their 16 legislative and administrative prerogatives. 17 18 52. The limitations on Regulated ADDS, Class A ADDs, 19 the distinction between Class A and Class AA aircraft, MAP levels 20 and commercial passenger terminal facilities provided for in this 21 stipulation, the provisions of paragraphs 37 and 38 of this 22 stipulation, and the agreements of the City, SPON and AWG not to 23 contest or impede implementation of the EIR 508/EIS Project 24 (p'aragraph 39 of this stipulation), are fundamental and essential 25 aspects of this settlement, and were agreed upon with full 26 recognition of the possibility that economic, demographic, 27 technological, operational or legal changes not currently 28 contemplated could occur during the Project Period. It was in 20 I 1 ] recognition of these essential aspects of the settlement, and the 2 inability to predict with certainty certain future conditions 3 that the settling parties have agreed to the specific and express 4 provisions of paragraph 49 of this stipulation. The settling 5 parties further acknowledge that this settlement provides for the 6 settling parties to perform undertakings at different times, and 7 that the performance of certain of the undertakings, once 8 accomplished, could not be undone. Accordingly, except as 9 provided herein, the settling parties expressly waive any 10 Potential right to seek to modify or vacate the terms of the 11 settlement or the Stipulated Judgment, except by mutual agree- 12 ment. 13 14 Date: �tTilj��-f� MICHAEL SCOTT GATZKE MARK J. DILLON 15 Gatzke, Lodge•& Mispagel, 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefend- ants, the County of Orange and the 17 Orange Coun Board of Supervisors 18 19 al hael S Ott Ga ke 20 21 Date: �j� � / PIERCE 01DONNELL* STEVEN F. PFLAUM 22 JOSEPHINE E. POWE O'Donnell & Gordon 23 *A Professional Corporation 24 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and 25 Crossdefendant, the City of Newport Beach 26 27 By: � � 28 Steven F. Pfla 21 c 6 i 1 2' 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [STIPULATION SIGNATURE PAGE 'CONTINUED] ` Date:.'; • ••-' '� E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Attorneys for Defendants, Counterclaimants and Crossdefendants, Stop Polluting Our Newport and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. E. Clement Shute, Jr. 22 Exhibit A John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement - Potential Extension ETR "Alternative A" Project Terms Outline Curfew: Existing curfew remains in effect until 1/l/2026. Facilities: County authorized to design and seek permits for 4 additional gates and a corresponding increase in terminal holding areas. County authorized to begin construction as of 1/1/2005. County also authorized to increase concession/retail space in the terminal as proposed in recent study. Noise Classes: Immediately combine Class A ADD (now 39) and Class AA ADD (now 34) so that — until the 4 gates are operational — 73 Class A ADD would be authorized. Operations: County would be authorized, when the four additional gates are operational, to immediately increase noise regulated departures from 73 A ADD to 85 A ADD and immediately increase seat capacity to correspond to an increase from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP. Cargo operations limited to 2 Class A ADD with current restrictions. These provisions would expire 1/1/ 2016. Noise Limits: Class A and Class E ueisc lcvvls uiuniu aA6 same tuttil 1/l/2026. Class A noise levels reduced if and to the extent that carriers elect to take advantage of a trade -out plan (such as 2 B757 Class A ADD for each MD 80 Class A ADD) that eliminates loudest aircraft. GA: General aviation noise ordinance and GA facilities remain in place until 1/1/2021. JWA Planning: County would be authorized, on 1/l/2016, to commence preparation of "master airport layout plan for JWA any modification to the plan" or that could increase capacity. No restrictions on modifications to the master plan or airport layout plan for JWA that are necessary to preserve or enhance safety or to comply with FAA regulations. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney TO: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Comm. FROM: Robert Burnham RE: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Role of Staff Direction from Committee DATE: May 22, 2001 I would like some direction from the Committee as to the role you would like me to play, if any, in the preparation of the environmental document and the manner In which I should obtain direction from the Committee. The MOU calls for weekly meetings and Allen Murphy intends to schedule the first meeting for early next week. This meeting will involve discussion of the Notice of Preparation and, specifically, project objectives, the "no -project" alternative, other alternatives necessary to comply with CEQA, the "scoping process", our interaction with the "corridor cities" and consultant work scopes. The selection of project objectives and the designation of an alternative that is environmentally superior to the others in terms of noise and traffic are important to ensure the EIR complies with CEQA and that the Board and Council have the legal authority to approve an agreement similar to Exhibit A. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney TO: John Wayne Airport Settlement Extension FROM: Robert Burnham RE: John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Proposed Extension Update DATE: May 21, 2001 I am faxing a copy of the Board of Supervisors regular and supplemental agendas for the 6122/01 meeting. The proposed MOU is on the supplemental agenda item S66B. The agenda lists approximately 20 discussion items but many of them look like non -controversial matters. Allen Murphy told me that he and Mike had briefed all Supervisors except Wilson (he was too busy). He indicated that Smith, Silva and Coad seemed supportive of the MOU although Coad (not sure if it was Tom or Cynthia) asked him what alternative they should vote for (1 communicated this to Curt). According to Allen, he and Mike explained that their only action on 6/22 was approval of the MOU with the three alternatives to be studied to the same level of detail. Allen said Spitzer Indicated he understood what they presented, he had no questions, and made no statement relative to his position. Bruce and Dave spoke with Smith and indicated that he was supportive of the MOU and the range of alternatives. Allen is going to brief Wilson in the morning. I talked with Allen and Mike about one issue related to the MOU and one issue related to the alternatives. The MOU contains a "no cause" termination provision and 1 asked if they would consider some reimbursement for City expenses (like 60- 60) if the County pulled the plug after we had spent $300,000 on the EIR. They both suggested that our best protection in that regard was to maintain three votes. With respect to alternatives, I also suggested that we add one that the alternatives Include at least one that would be environmentally superior from a noise and traffic standpoint — an alternative such as our original 20 year extension on existing terms and conditions. I told them that this would be important in terms of "negotiations" with the carriers and the FAA — they need to see a project alternative that is more limiting than Exhibit A so they see a downside. Mike and Allen both seem quite supportive of adding such a "project" alternative and they are willing to discuss a number of other details that could help facilitate preparation of the EIR. My sense is that both Allen and Mike think that we could end up with an extension that provides some immediate relief at JWA, helps with El Toro and, on balance, is good for the County as a whole. See you tomorrow. H. Burnham ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A g e n d a R e v i s i o n s a n d S u p p 1 e m e n t a I s Supplemental Item(s) S56A Chair Coad - Acting as the Board of Supervisors and MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority - Direct MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority Executive Director to prepare Request for Qualifications to provide Sacramento advocacy services and return to the Board for approval S56B John Wayne Airport - Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Newport Beach for funding and preparation of environmental documentation of alternative proposals for extension and modification of settlement agreement restrictions - District 5 SCS2 County Counsel - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION: County Counsel requests a closed session to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the status of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The cases are: A White and Yellow Cab, aka, A Taxi v. County of Orange, et al., OCSC Case No. OOCC12595 and In re American Livery, Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Ct. Case No. SA01-12955JR - All Districts SCS3 County Counsel- CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION: County Counsel requests a closed session to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the status of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The case is: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., a Missouri corporation v. County of Orange, etc. et al., OCSCCJD No. 815150 REVISIONS AND SUPPLEMENTALS TO MAY 22, 2001, AGENDA - PAGE 2 A G E N D A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Tuesday, May 22, 2001 BOARD HEARING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California CYNTHIA P. COAD CHAIR Fourth District JAMES W. SILVA VICE CHAIR Second District TODD SPITZER SUPERVISOR Third District COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER COUNTY COUNSEL Michael Schumacher Laurence M. Watson CHARLES V. SMITH SUPERVISOR First District THOMAS W. WILSON SUPERVISOR Fifth District CLERK OF THE BOARD Darlene J. Bloom The Orange County Board of Supervisors welcomes you to this meeting. This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered The Board of Supervisors encourages your participation. If you wish to speak on an item contained in the agenda, please complete a Speaker Form identifying the items) and deposit it in the Speaker Form Return box located on the side of the podium. Ifyou wish to speak on a matter which does not appear on the agenda, you may do so during the Public Commem period at the close of the meeting. Fxcept as otherwiseprovided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing in the agenda. Speaker Forms are available in the containers located on the far left and far right walls and at the middle entrance to the Hearing Room. When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record prior to providing your comments. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Comments to individual Supervisors or staff are not permitted. Speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes. ** The meeting room will accommodate hearing impaired persons. Please see the Clerkfor assistance. ** All supporting documentation is available for public review in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors located in the Hall ofAdministration Building, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 465, Santa Ana, California 92701 during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00Ain., Monday through Friday. 9:30 A.M. INVOCATION: Supervisor Wilson, Fifth District PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Supervisor Silva, Second District INDEX I. PRESENTATIONSANTRODUCTIONS Page 2 II. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1-35) Page 2 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items 36-56) Page 6 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Items 57-60) Page 8 V. CLOSED SESSION (Item CS-1) Page 9 VI. PUBLIC, BOARD & EMAIL COMMENTS & ADJOURNMENT Page 9 AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 1 A G E N D A L PRESENTATIONSANTRODUCTIONS Chair Coad will present a resolution to Health Care Agency for "Emergency Medical Services Week" Chair Coad will present a resolution for National Drug Court Month Supervisor Wilson will be recognizing Orange County students for winning State and National award in 2001 International Aviation Art Contest 11. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1-35) All matters are approved by one motion unless pulled by a Board Member for discussion or separate action. At this time, any member of the public may ask the Board to be heard on any item on the Consent Calendar. BOARD APPOINTMENTS 1. Supervisor Silva - Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee - Appoint Ronald M. Burczewski, Seal Beach, for term ending 7/1/02 2. Chair Coad - Chair appointment - Orange County Fire Authority - Appoint Thomas W. Wilson for term ending 1/l/02 COMMENDATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 3. Chair Coad - Adopt resolution commending Mr. Francisco Bertot for his dedicated support and contributions to the field of international education and for his extraordinary achievements as a civic leader 4. Supervisor Wilson - Adopt resolution proclaiming May 2001 as "Special Olympics Month" and June 5, 2001 as "Special Olympics Day" COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY 5. Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Huntington Beach for partnership in development and operation of Workforce Investment Area Delivery System - All Districts 6. Approve renewal of agreement D-9 with Rochelle J. Daniels for Workforce Investment Act consultant services, Orange County Workforce Investment Board, 4/l/01 - 3/31/02 ($50,000) - All Districts HEALTH CARE AGENCY 7. Adopt resolution approving and authorizing agreement with State Department of Health Services for reimbursement of Medi-Cal administrative activities, 7/1/00 - 6130/01; authorize Director to execute FY 2000-01 Consortium Participation agreement with Solano County for continued participation in claiming process; and authorize advance payment to Solano County ($14,348) - All Districts AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 2 A G E N D A INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 8. Receive bids and award contract to R.J. Noble Company for road improvements, Santiago Canyon Landfill ($60,400.80) - District 3 9. Approve price agreement N1000003580 with SCS Field Services for operation and maintenance services of landfill gas control systems, former Villa Park and Reeve Pit refuse disposal stations, 6/23/01 - 6/22/04 ($225,000); renewable for two additional years - District 3 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 10. Authorize Director to execute agreement with John Wayne Airport Yellow Cab Service for taxicab service under certain conditions; and make California Environmental Quality Act and other findings (Continued from 5/8/01, Item S37C; 5115101, Item 9) ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 11. Approve change order 1 to agreement with Brion S. Jeannette & Associates, Inc. for adding design modification to construction documents for expansion project, El Toro Branch Library ($22,090; new total $98,526) - District 3 12. Approve declaring emergency and make appropriate findings pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 for and ratify emergency agreement with ACCO Air Conditioning Company, Inc. for replacement of HVAC condensing unit at University Park Library ($48,000) - District 5 (415 vote) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 13. Approve amendment 2 to agreement D97-113 with Santa Ana for Civic Center Sign Program, extending terms to 4/30/02 - District 1 14. Approve Tract 15914, Richmond American Homes of California, Inc., Ladera Ranch area; accept dedication for emergency access and storm drain purposes; approve construction agreement SO401-0054 and accept bonds guaranteeing construction of improvements - District 5 15. Approve Tract 16063, DUB Ladera, L.L.C., Ladera Ranch area; accept dedication for street purposes and vehicular access rights; accept easements for scenic preservation; approve construction agreements SO401-0053 and DO1-038 accepting bonds guaranteeing construction improvements and D01-037 accepting cash deposit for future construction of traffic signals - District 5 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 16. Approve continuance of emergency and make appropriate findings pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22050 regarding requirement to provide 100% emergency back-up electrical power, Hall of Finance and Records; authorize Director or designee to prepare and award agreement to complete work; and set review of this action on 6/5/01, 9:30 a.m., and every 14 days to determine continuing need for emergency action - District 1(415 vote) (Continued from 4/3/01, Item 69; 4/24/01, Item 71; 518101, Item 14) AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 3 A G E N D A 17. Approve amendment 2 to agreement D99-053 with Simons, Li & Associates, Inc. for water quality studies, Newport Bay/San Diego Creek watershed, extending term to 12/22/01($50,000; new total $377,500) - Districts 3 & 5 18. Acting as the Orange County Flood Control District - Approve amended agreement D00-030 with PBS&J for engineering services, Serrano Creek, extending terms to 3/1/03 ($245,000; new total $445,000) - District 3 SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY 19. Accept donations from Capitol Group Companies, Inc. for Operation Santa Claus Campaign ($10,260), FY 2000-01- All Districts PUBLIC PROTECTION 20. District Attorney - Approve amended agreement with County of Ventura for Case Management System Software Program CRIMES II ($250,000); and authorize District Attorney or designee to execute amendments under certain conditions - All Districts 21. Sheriff -Coroner - Receive bids and award contract to Premier Contractors for renovation of inmate programs building, James A. Musick Facility ($74,444) - District 5 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 22. Assessor Department - Approve amended price agreement N1000001719 with Bob Klamt, Management Consultant, to extend term for review of department operations, 611101- 9/30/01- All Districts Auditor -Controller: 23. Authorize relief of accountability to Vicki Wilson and reimbursement to Public Facilities & Resources Department for cash loss of $538.85 - All Districts 24. Set 6119101 as date to establish appropriation limits for entities governed by County Board of Supervisors for FY 2001-02 (document available for public review in the Office of the Auditor Controller, commencing 614101) - All Districts 25. County Counsel - Approve amended agreement with McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP for legal services - All Districts (Continued from 5115101, Item 42) County Executive Office: 26. Approve amended price agreement N1000002066 with Burke Consulting for preparation of 2002 Orange County Community Indicators Report, extending term to 4/30/02 ($47,000; new total $125,000) - All Districts 27, Approve revised Telecommunications Internal Service Fund billing rates, FY 2001- 02, effective 7/1/01- All Districts AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 4 A G E N D A 28. Acting as the Board of Supervisors and South Orange County Public Financing Authority - Approve agreement with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as Bond Counsel and Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates as Financial Advisor for the proposed Reassessment Revenue Bonds Series A of 2001 for Irvine Coast Assessment District 88-1 and Newport Ridge Assessment District 92-1- District 5 29. Approve amended agreements with Doctor's Ambulance, Medix Ambulance and Schaefer Ambulance Services for County unincorporated areas, extending terms to 6/30/04 - All Districts 30. Approve amended price agreement with N1000002703 with American Management Systems to limit contractor's liability for damages resulting from contract and product failures, breach of product warranty, and indirect and consequential damages, to a maximum of $750,000 - All Districts 31. Approve purchase order P0100009284 with C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for appraisal services to be used in evaluating withdrawal and sale of certain certificates of participation encumbered properties - All Districts 32. Authorize annexation of County owned property to the Orange County Sanitation District, "Lemon Heights area" - All Districts Chair Coad: 33. Approve Community Social Program Grant funds to Orange Elderly Services, Inc.; approve budget adjustments; and make appropriate findings, 5/22/01 - 10/31/01 ($1,000) 34. Approve Community Social Program Grant funds to Project Dignity; approve budget adjustments; and make appropriate findings, 5/22/01 - 10/1/01 ($1,000) 35. Clerk of the Board - Approve the proposed Conflict of Interest Code for the Orange County Regional Airport Authority - All Districts END OF CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 5 A G E N D A III. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items 36-56) At this time, members of the public may ask the Board to be heard on the following items as those items are called. COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY 36. Approve agreements with Training Institute, Inc. ($1,175,820), La Habra ($1,495,451), Coast Community College District ($2,013,788) and Garden Grove ($2,270,562) for One -Stop Centers; and Brea ($240,000), Goodwill Industries, Inc. ($221,354) and ProPath, Inc. ($849,976) for specialized services to businesses and job seekers, FY 2001-02 - All Districts HEALTH CARE AGENCY 37. Adopt resolution approving Negotiated Net Amount/Drug Medi-Cal agreement with State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs for alcohol and drug abuse treatment and prevention services, FY 2001-04 - All Districts 38. Approve agreement with Community Service Programs, Inc. for Mental Health Intensive Day Treatment services, 7/1/01- 6130103 ($932,665) - All Districts 39. Approve agreements with various providers for Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation services, 7/1/01- 6/30/03 ($2,392,210) - All Districts HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 40. Approve final report and recommendations regarding application and Request for Proposals project selection process for 2001 SuperNOFA Continuum of Care Associated Application for Homeless Assistance; and make California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Protection Act findings - All Districts (Continued from 5115101, Item 8) INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 41. Approve price agreement N1000003585 with Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates for operation, maintenance, sampling and monitoring services for landfill gas control system, Central Region Landfill Operations, 6/23/01- 6/22/04 ($1,950,000) - District 3 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 42. Authorize submission of grant application and execution of agreement with Federal Aviation Administration for Airport Improvement Program; and authorize Director to execute agreement upon award - District 5 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 43. Reject all bids and return bid guarantee for remodel of 2020 West Walnut, Santa Ana - District 1 (Continued from 5115101, Item 50) AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 6 A G E N D A SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY 44. Approve agreement MS-0102-18 with State Department of Aging for Multipurpose Senior Services Program ($1,439,982) - All Districts PUBLIC PROTECTION District Attorney: 45. Adopt resolution approving submission of grant application and execution of agreement with Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance for Gang Mobile Gang Enforcement Team Program ($2,993,400); and authorize District Attorney or designee to execute amendments under certain conditions - All Districts 46. Approve grant award agreement with U.S. Department of Justice for participation in Strategies in Community Prosecution grant program, terms ending 6/30/02 ($150,000); and authorize District Attorney or designee to execute amendments under certain conditions - All Districts (RA. # 3, 415 vote) (Continued from 5115101, Item 37) Probation: 47, Approve price agreement N2000002756 with BI Incorporated for lease of equipment/hardware and off -site centralized monitoring services for Juvenile Offender Supervised Electronic Confinement Program, 6/1/01 - 5/31/02 ($140,000); renewable for three additional years - All Districts 48. Approve amended agreement S0000015.95 with Motorola, Inc. for additional 800 MHz radio equipment ($425,000); and approve related budget adjustments for transfer of funds - All Districts (RA. #3, 415 vote) 49. Sheriff -Coroner - Adopt resolution approving submission of Anti -Drug Abuse Enforcement Program application FY 2001-02 and execution of grant award agreement with State Office of Criminal Justice Planning, 7/l/01- 6/30/02 ($1,197,442); and make appropriate findings - All Districts GENERAL ADMINISTRATION County Executive Office: 50. Approve price agreement N1000003597 with William M. Mercer, Inc. for professional and project management services, 5/22/01 - 5/21/03 ($570,000); renewable for two additional years - All Districts 51. Approve Six -Month Report on Televised Board Meetings - All Districts 52. Adopt resolution approving Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 County Plan and Funding Request, FY 2001-02 - All Districts AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 7 A G E N D A 53. Local Redevelopment Auth: MCAS El Toro Department - Acting as the Board of Supervisors and WAS EL Toro Local Redevelopment Authority - Approve agreement with GeoSyntec Consultants to conduct environmental site assessment ($1.5 million for Element I and III of the scope of work); and return to the Board with final Element II scope of work and budget approval - All Districts (Continued from 5115101, Item 53) 54. Supervisor Spitzer - Consideration of County Position on SB 703 relating to proposed modifications to the MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority membership EXTERNAL RESTRUCTURING PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 55. At this time Members of the Board of Supervisors and/or the County Executive Office may report on and discuss activities related to the External Restructuring Program for the County of Orange (Continued from 5115101, Item 55) STRATEGIC/FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 56. At this time Members -of the Board of Supervisors and/or the County Executive Office may report on and discuss activities related to the development of Strategic/Financial Plan for the County of Orange, including the Performance Measurement Program ("Results Oriented Government") IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Items 57-60) HEALTH CARE AGENCY 57. Public Hearing to consider adopting resolution rescinding Resolutions 99-500, 93-710 and 94-809, effective 6/30/01; approve Animal Care Services fee schedule update for animals impounded, animal license fees and animal business license fees, effective 7/1/01; and make California Environmental Quality Act findings - All Districts 58. Public Hearing to consider adopting resolution rescinding Resolution 00-172, effective 6130101 and approve Environmental Health's fee update for food, pool and special services, effective 7/1/01; and make California Environmental Quality Act findings - All Districts GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 59. County Executive Office - Public Hearing to consider adopting resolution for Apartment Development Revenue Bonds, Issue D of 2001 (Heritage Place at Tustin) for submission of an application to California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for a private activity mortgage revenue bond allocation ($8,000,000); and select a financing team and other related matters - District 5 60. Clerk -Recorder - Public Hearing to consider adopting resolution authorizing establishing cost recovery fee for sale of copies of recorded real property document images over internet; and make California Environmental Quality Act findings - All Districts AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 8 A G E N D A V. CLOSED SESSION (Item CS-1) CS- County Counsel - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION - County 1. Counsel requests a closed session to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the status of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The case is: Vedanta Society of Southern California, etc. v. County of Orange, et al. Appellate Case No. G026580, Consolidated Case No. 791309 - All Districts VI. PUBLIC BOARD & EMAIL COMMENTS & ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENTS: At this time, members of the public may address the Board of Supervisors regarding any off -agenda items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors provided that NO action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. Comment shall be limited to three minutesperperson and twenty minutes for all comments, unless different time limits are set by the Chair subject to the approval of the Board. BOARD COMMENTS: At this time, members of the Board of Supervisors may comment on agenda or non -agenda matters and ask questions of or give directions to staff, provided that NO action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. ADJOURNED: May 29, 2001 Board Dark June 5, 2001 Regular Board Meeting, 9:30 A.M. June 12, 2001 Regular Board Meeting, 9:30 A.M. June 12, 2001 2001-2002 Budget Hearings, 9:00 A.M. June 13, 2001 2001-2002 Continuation of Budget Hearings,1:00 P.M. AGENDA - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING, TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - PAGE 9 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A g e n d a R e v i s i o n s a n d S u p p l e m e n t a I s May 22, 2001 Chair Coad will present resolution to Health Care Agency for "Emergency Medical Services Week" DELETED CONSENT 13. Continued to 6119101, 9:30 A.M. 25. Revise title to read: County Counsel - Acting as the Board of Supervisors and MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority - Approve amendment 3 to agreement with McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP for legal services - All Districts (Continued from 5115101, Item 42) 31, Deleted 41. Continued to 615101, 9:30 A.M. 43. Continued to 6/26/01, 9:30 A.M. THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS HAVE HAD CHANGES TO THEDtRECOMMENDED ACTIONS SINCE RELEASE OF THE AGENDA TO THE PUBLIC: Items: 25 and 51 REVISIONS AND SUPPLEMENTALS TO MAY 22, 2001, AGENDA - PAGE 1 ■f . 1 \'t. 1 W$f s jj��e .f w _ ..' JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 .d is e _ r Y y 1 ` .. .• 'fyc :.rid... 'k.y)_ .'ys',�,.3...,.. ,.... <�! .. /.. ' .�:. may, ''.. +w ,•.•: >.,tn •.ty` Yam`.. .t i"�j,%� f �-" '' j z' 'S•�L•�.+'•,5`R# x \� 7•: N I x..Y ��,J '. ` t i 4^ tl o 1"'``at ,,+'/.! J 7,S'vcq�-z i.J/ .A a I�7 {% s JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE • •,;, , . FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 `y rl Zv `_ .'�_ _ �j}� �,..t4A'."�l; _. ?)-��riyif +l�ii f L t'-a���E � �• y . 1 L , r- k; � _ � r._: �' /.Xs k� x' .,,,zf v E y,: t ,s'� i' _Y✓� ,�,� I lie t.:,� f � :x s x •+ice „rr� sue,/-�c. �� � . Ix R.- JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE lie FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 RE N 3� ...... . . . . . . . . c F,, A 1 F � tlr� ��3 ''b�y !�yi •` �,S19rl9 • +~ , 1�.-�r �` Aa s, � �-y*.�.aL"^ Y � a 1, Y .1'.� !` ,�,s�•/�� / f � ••-- Y 1 --- N fir, � ��'�'n' �: � + � •y� t r�'•r- v� �"c �... - Fi' i� i JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTUREig FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 �: eta i� + .�. I4'> , '!#• } .15 \fit + ;�v n "i \ `� -_ •�� -• �.� ,f i a r A a.b � rt . � +q '�St�t ��F4C ��K�'� �.� t 4 - ` // / � � � , �i � ? �� ,� ` ~, � +�1� + r �.' •aye � .,. /� v - i1:�.).i s?r..P�t :yL•�ir U j ,�:�1 �{ r�Y r.�'�t 49'� .�•" ' .. ;7 - w � ;i � v� N 1� .� '� :.,fix a t'`•1�I�:d i � � �,* ` r� i _'fy i -.-,•� % � i .� � is 9��� z�i >� t� '-� r � .�. /1 r - Beet ' �� � v �,,•� � �` � \� - IIII r - III I I / r - / v A, • I I I 1 1 3000.001 `l.. 1 Ste/' t�h �r�14 �'� � � 2000.00 1000.00_ (`Y 'L l -I t `• MiAlt -Feet JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 i" 1 ,z },ff• I » + 1x Alt - Feet r- -0. j /l% 1 JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE '' ' r j = FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 Ma: aq �yt' .HFn T ..1. ., v^ 2 `. rN Atiy +l `f•�A{ l•M y - h F 1 f` M.. /—�"� /.� k ad a•, <�f •,. d � dr. .,i ,�' .' r"" �i JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTUREZ sj K •r FLIGHT TRACKSBYALTITUDE; FOR FEBRUARY 10, 20011 - � / r /�X�{ ...� ��. � �-�` A>,.t• � � 3 tr4 3' �l1trP t ```�t.+�.tu� - 111' ,,r � l � �- _�>.; � �..y SI `..+ ' 4. ��4 � ia" �d,�7M•'I, `z. �yFa st' � dd �- tl � L c vG t ant � j x.i `i!`s'� _ t .. •I_� } �♦ J ,^l 1� ! Y ellle !l � `L+ .,+s �y r yFf / J _ ti"•vr •rn s .F I : rrt � �': -. �.. k .S ♦ xJ t m7 `� r I r � ✓ i y q � t 111 111- i18000.00J ` \ 4000.00 • 3000.00 \ / / -. , j' Yd ` ixxWi� t �2000.00:---- 21 1000.00rw 1 I I re� JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE F OR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 Its W9 M wn % it Alt - Fee 3oonojia� UP 1III 0.00, J-, - p 5III .00, F, 400 I'M 300: 2000 MW I l000 I I 4.e mv 1 11 JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 vIi _ r _ -'Li is •. ^n fp �' f i3 J.. r�)^�Z)� yr rs '� • . +-' t �e f•- � sf+ it r--�'cc'��r--+a. ✓r "s � �' s'= - � • ,, y� >.\ ' .- t '. t ys rr ,� -; � � 4 + .. + �r 1 � ,.-vim* 1111 I I y t it NEE - JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 � + � � � �'.:Oi \t=R Af,.S,� yr{..R �h r iN ( E s • t _ l 1 n4 • I k � ����<�w�s 4,•ic .fh�toa� � .i^•, � :._.'�;y``� 'A) a.;"!i - . f •A ..r S �3,, I , i `�—..� '�` S r � Y .�t', ru `� A ry"• -.: rr` .•`1 � — ; y� - JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE l_ �•" `r, t.,::I: k �% FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 - � 4 w• n� i 1 �3]{y '. .i. -' asu.7v ww,a ♦���n �i S y 't'a .� •+54-�- - � - �1 s H Vl, Mx�.,7: � '�.. ` v, r..kf � i,L � •4rn• ' 'y _1F � "v2b� ktb`' �w � � - % `�' c � «�y',Tt � jl•.::7 t� oh 3 l\ '\ �?i� \ i" S:• r�. +!'ri r i✓ w. Yt f ♦ ., yy � ;-4�t r . ,kit -Feet t - 8000.0q __ J - , • ram` twy.�t_ 4000.00 .��� \ 7 \-- !- �_ f �� \ y ' a- - 3000.00 12 I I ~- jI.�'�i I11 +. t °' �.. t i. r• 1 I I ...•i' I �I tom.. �. i / / .� -"'l.'7., tits^" 1 1� 1� JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 - Feet A*j J JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE A 7 FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 . . . •. v. . . . . . . - Feet - Feet lr f t 1 is ri JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 ✓ c ,iM y,s iH,'x ��t f4 - � , al � ,'':' , y - 'r _' � x'^ .#� s ,�, ;�.. f j} 4 1.;, t � 'mod..-$pptls.�-• r i:_%��`'_ v �`"<,:' �,�-✓% '1{/� •+.'°` f I n , -,�Ry, .i'1m`dF� �, ° ;h y r5 `y ,.^' / f:i (f p r r n 1 w-4r� 1 4tr A .y5••t �+S-� �^ ISM: s JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 -3, �Fl 41 v .14 - 711 54. .75, - '-"O'i� F - Feet 3 o f � .._ i J .C`.r`— r✓ JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURES FLIGHT TRACKS BYALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 3yp sd. ,r s yk ,1y •''V .d .. H �� � x R r r. r}1 , 1; ray i ♦ q % S 11 ta)-{(/jF✓,�f� C�`r. � .!p4 N L W//� F�lll JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE�. FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE ��ez FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 XIM, All 4h i.r,'y �! +t ' rx!'H"a,i^��..r� i�Y ('y4.'iA.+ M �[`At �' `Y„✓�/�'�-w� G{-, M 1. I' �� . � i . +' ! ' .{ ✓ J •` T i �= I v}r +.pp JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 .c � _.. _ _ -� t' l � �i� /��h, .�'> 2 : Ih..so- "4 � r.. 1 •. _" #S• r . •r � xt :x .y ♦ t .. +• +4/ ,y `� i rt 4" a-�y�iaS�y?,r,i� lfi' !` w.` � � n f >, e gigy�"- __ Y' � l�iti •,Sy�i Yv w , '\ ice. � ; ?ir.�l y j (/t at u.. ,• � � � �y+,, n r�, `"� I.' i `� .� i' 3 I � r o� z�'�' J�". ;'�+- 1 "nk `57 '� � •u ' �Y '�� � 1 r 4 S ✓� I"i _' � Ys�.c� � � ',�� y>Ar�l."+/ i a � �• �r 1i ii. ''cU;"�,^•ka�`.p' r } `4. Ya�if'.�}, ` ,y S�li>, xti iis�f •�2�Ni' �M s} y i) d".'. i� "`` r tt � 5 YA �� R1 ,i � Ft,�.•i IP i.A - nf" �N�., y 111 t rp :.- �l *..wy>�• ii JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE. FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 ALA ••.—� _ v 1t+„ PjZ21 r"� i! 4 y .)I Ci: ram,,. t n sii 4• > `. / * )�yvf y°��aL t> L J x �`Si '�i -/• 1 } h�:� #tb f ey`�y '•�� ~ � � J �� at✓ 1. .• `w�t��- ����t�,�bj/ -� f! ♦ i v � liar /'�-'`... 999"' 3 c ■ 111 I I ` �`Y j .jJ`/ �/ '\,�/ i/ /r i>3� , t Y���` Y" III II � .»_- I i�. •F� /- _�'f � ,. 4`` I !� #V+ x� \� �l- �i I I 11 ' � •�� f b 1 � _ . . '� - .�.' ' x "/. �. ..> "^4 ♦ is t t F �1 7 SO �,i�4'�"(a�+,r ,#,��M'�`(�,�' � •ctri ��yP z �,` � .�!"�./' / - ti JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 r l � ' t 7 - : y� ` - � .. "*.'sA $ icy �J1� (� •C �' -\ a �1�L i0,}� r :`! �,, � �y,-�/ ' 11 r.ai �i °5•�., Y �,:�•y F � N{� ?p ' hs �x-•':ii[r Z' (�`'� - 1 �- III .III I 1 (f `i •` \ /�5.' y ,: r V; , ..Y. -�->�; III I 1 III I 1 III I1 i✓:, J �. / h } i WE Lit sl ; rr~w.Iy4�NS!9`N�ho-� h x•'r k ; ] '�'f� ,u�i�; i_� �� �/���. r_ E Al p A' • e v •� 'x il' P" �,r A�YY' {i ���'JF"r�n 1. A'� f µme` � ..' _ � � f � :�./ iHl d5 Y �ets'1A q+"iF" n Jl i i III rr JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE - FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE T Y: FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 4 t. t I L r- ,,}, �'•y ta.%��xs� i •)�q lk its �i.�s 10, � � —J ` f / � '4' Y '�.I" l��ti��$ImJ.L�Vs � �� VAT � :Jlt-yi� �' --yam•_'^_ •. =\ram � �' /r I. - � � �lr 'J ! �"� S ` . f N/ , 'JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 71 i7 iv AA LA to 1z -1 6 f i fA a YF •f i 1- JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ::. 1,- FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 . f - f�V.. i� i JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE. FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE, FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 B A rn -ZA L1W J RR WAA WAL AND DEPARTURE? 1- FLldWV-tACKSBYALTITUDE FOR-FEBRUARY 10, 2001 :l i �.c•'i�:�+i-e�� i �il �F?iG'1�� Y.. t' a a t _ / ,�, n �_,'`:,-sal ei 1(�~y.�r��,�' r•'�., � i Fie.' r`��.. � —_rG w tac 1�' �$�,•�, s� s' `• u JWA-ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE . r' FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FQR_EEBRUARY 10, 2001 OM Fv •ti r gj' i ri 5 yr y � it 4eee...t,,,...i'',+ �A�i7 r� n . v:1y � �',ry . _ J - \\77 J U✓ "�/ - /y� jt +� 2..,: (J r3zz 1� 1 � '�`•s+�y� t' t1^g t 1. ;�rl� {.t� }'.��y '+ �� 1/!'�'�y7� j, hT 1f ex• nJ r#}�, rikV rr ,rt T^'„X�c"�'{+- °s ,r I' /r r � �• •,YH S� �� ,r i��lf _ 10000.00 Po III 11 III 11 Rel III 11 I I 1 11 PI 1000.00 rui.. - `9[ • ems.-:. I ■ , firm�flf! \Iy1N111 • :4 llll3'^lur�1"�-+i �c. sI i (i J ��r'� T •, j i _ 'q"'- II yyy� � I / 3 xii"j- MAVIIr XMI ��T�/IV lu S�a`fs�� tpyiL.E•�? <r � `'�1.-, .._" .`'. 1111� If e G w.ij�`id� / / • r-r ro'.,yt >�'4e "x'!I�► ar, k,'{r33'"fr v��, �'Cil> - .�4y�s�,r�•,,y+•?4"s-lic��s�.1�"`.�—�..arS" Aw �rit?e• f i ,id1,'Lir1C r r -E?r"4 ` -• y :'`^.iy Y��.��iG-/si'I%� wm�'s o �.+' / ♦ I- �iii I v a � �9Y11C:�� �.,' / 4!.%1 l,h�u i. �i tll�, m,%��71����r�d� �••`�_ ��t kl�~i�C a' •, , � %�� 0 .� r«F V, ' A�;R/3fuU If -Ili r asa y ;p �T If Ti'�e91liE asr,'�iieye t'� � ' R ��JRpZfI ',' i ii�w�a_•`,��?�...-w�4 t`�: fir'. ` r rr. a y© � `Z. ;df/� � � s �������� d� �_ � &� � � v ���$���x2, <� �������\\ ae y �. ���� \d� �«�R22? f�� yz. �� � ." . R�� S ^ ! � /� .� � \� �\��� .� "§ � //t .� /� � � ���/® .; &�� � � \§. ."� A �w�>~ \��� ����:��� 1,aaf uuPW; III-+JMs�.John Wayne Airport Arrivals May 2000 - mt� `!nl �rSrlllle Slap m . i'115.� �1�P I r I Trd �ti.iij<jL -52iT, or, NO MR 9O7,1IIItI 111mzi y x umrtui "f 26Ct°" yGst+� ' ` ' =�, R�� '_?�g P r a �� �.,.c3<•��.-mow 'F-_:.. till t' r a r.». '- su•� .� VZ u�y '} y^�„at r•�s a r a ti., r r "`~ ♦ 3 � �eied' J� +'n test y n v. r� a '�'. / r ••' y. >1� " i3��E���"'� Fay ''ri K)"' �L"jH�'�� \-• \t � /�` ♦y `�� m°n`°�'-� � •� t r � r I r ♦r 'K'-s�,�.. `'�N,. �\ I 6 ij>L?f" �' 'A ll �roa �y�r s♦./ ry y y �•y, - 'tlts\ l �jy.,���w i I ozm 4..;" WWI 6�*'�It to ;111Ar yr ��.,�. )( Mir Lf "r.J" / Affimmai oggq" MIR r!sR 1g •; I BeYR►'r� ' � AIM r:6 4 ` - I S Nn•��iv^"may � n r p� PIN IIIm�x x, r 5', Wayne �� lT rl � � �t ■rf'fjy� AJohn in��'ik ,s7i��ltll.l� 'JEI��I�ien�ri- ■TIIj7=T�.�r�r��'� Ti�3�l���rii ■�ti r i:�,�� / '.. t^�y" v i.r 77l•(L,7fil ma iw�yrvF�Ky ? rmslhm-,-& zz M. I� \r ■m5tit t j ce...t r . es A. m' s� dir c w I wj,� �t /:• .,. y ' i�,�Y <+a�'llYa��irr i+ 'if�'��%C �:.,''� �►�Ix /'aw-w r'.. Ale . Mop 070 , ;, I��ry •Y{y�s� 5 �� �y�r' t ',.Jr I N,,� _ '�-_ _■. �.\�, � GIs. ,� � . t% r HE/t`�.:�\ \� 1`�•,'� �rr��` � :�.1!?i -MrA. r `N ' Ile t t f A�i � ems ' . •/; btu/.'<�t�� �! �r y ' , key r` -l_��'�z, Airport Arrivals May 2000 1�+ !fir'=r�;;•°''s ,-� ..� :'• fr it j$ g �i�dnn�o inb n uE y rZ14 ' / r Fr„� � : a r �LiW.m��tm.... ��v +35 � 1' I �';f 1 � �• � r�jl �r�++ �17L'It71f Ii• i Mr. John Wayne Airport Arrivals may 2000 CHO 1111 •'L3r�°I IITAoI�^•Iw����'�3�d� 36'.>f ti 1 *L a `Salt . m7� t c•s �'uf fie. _ �� 1 �PIryRL'Y-- 1T ���Yy � ,✓' y icm,;. �1 :rl -.v e.� 1. a/i'ii.ri yl il.tpp 1 f 01 iMjgt5 �wn.9 YJ�vst" � .sS f w .ems �t�.G>•-T",;:� c�!.�.wTaT•�-•j ..r.pryc.,_ e�+lJy,.r ••:ti"-`'1l'n�l'`5v j,.✓,�y.y'"_s� `r Irk ��'1�t6Y � %/ ry ft4J�`.'1•NIIr�M�<<,` ��\' 1 i At�" '" ...•aA.6 �, % 9 i��w,n�Ni $,,t, t .. l`�'I ih r�F I 'M/-'— I?+ >r r Mike n61 1Mk: •I 0 i-��',. w.. / � 1 ')•114` sl¢ mil 9� J rya � �� s „ � ,. , . /u 8. 1 ������� r �.,4►,� ♦ ter? + 3\>'�A' l � ``oi � `.7 911101 MFffiWrR,"mMAW MiAM A IMR4 MAI— fflieNq =zYmw R jie-- g M of M m T.1 TOR 111 AltpMl -zr ojLlIt"; 1,q an owl MR, Myl afl.- PIN.— - Airport Arrivals MayI 2000 �.a r" < �Y1rG- tN'� f• �qT- ko Ili ll + �1 t at;Y� I r'f��u:n t NG ` ft ohn Wayno Airport Arrivals May 2000 Al 2 I, +�em�lifrrs I:lj�l f ,CL'iu11 1 t.+ 71 r — II ilfth ` 5WO PAt � K � ..i Y n�:,,Sc"�� Y.✓�+-•.-...,sue s: yam'! // - ): : ill �. Iw zf.'� +;t 'l� f ` 1 >b c •► ��� erl r1 fq �".. •• /� / lull) , '. / � ,� *i//j ,���� ~ A-16"�i� y t ARa �Ck�INAP�I,,p'� IIIIIIE � as Ma.�a��r.� __ a3� M1 .V4,1 �i� s l N ! UMMUIjr ii.1�..,ll�Illwa 9 Ilsilu plev ONE 6 E E"Lill ' °a . Y 1 i��� WTI - r���• ip ilii• e �'? •�/5 t•4 ^ram � - 6 E E"Lill ' °a . Y 1 i��� WTI - r���• ip ilii• e �'? •�/5 t•4 ^ram � - also, '17� John Wayne Al 111 TIT e� rport Arrivals May � 1 rr3111r s,._ aJEI / —iuen�r'�— SIR N�Fri„.,'; �y1 1Ai n m � xnflw.r.YJ /wf1> µ OF leWO •• ME UpNk� ilN7jl /l/*'�br.�r,, f 1; � Ili /�; �I• `, »/ �.�lt��Wlld iz.ael� s�� r �Iw� iM'•,. �a gal *"a.!"p`'� • r,��b,�%11�.�• ����!� -:�_� �. r�[+, =ram ��. .• O � �i :7i/a•, �" - ��I A YR o am I>«'TM'! �3>>' , .. Cam;' �. ni�(� uu �r'.m. a -Airport CL OT;1=f•`.,a Ti3113"'1 - '� 1i 46 w W0, Y Sy a nnr +ryyM s. „°jMF�I nJ ," I ✓r j �. ' *'+.. • r �.� r Y"pn. 9C`}. "'2.°Y'�.��""r w�'k+•e! r Yu�3 a �+�'®c=[, .Lkr io- r S 6 � �,. , �J.n T7Ti '°`,.sr: ��+���yy,�•�j r*�<.,.� � t' `� J s' i i N.• f rz4 �f�Y`Q. •�i y r"' /t gx„':'i �i.�!}' rr.w .. Y�..�i 15.T..,. �� �i ✓� y'r/k, pul,A.rfl�lui� Zt"� : � / �'�'�•�••'I,~.i+ a :;. � / CIF c��t-C�1II��► � � � • �'1 �rF�.ky�,�. `�-' fi a r�: ' / yi�y � � �i'11� IL;rd;lEf 3��,r� �� +t•� `���n..��.. r �rni I IV-4,F. 0 a4.1 `Rp��� �� �I�.• ,I�� / � r 9 Ilh • �' J �.�h1M _1'111irp: John ort Arri own—- , ��✓LI �L i�a ull JEI�19' jij��� g y IIII VII�t�l fµt �N� iV�.t Ey, rlMl 41r � �`'�lull.r,nlf,�,s A+I• r s. I RM -aV.I vjj r li -u�iV I3s� •w:: �. 3 �w SIWKOV 3 n' 'i: �� -. � !'�� /� IA Etfix III I✓� i�}! ��r r�r�v� �I�j � ♦ _. ,�.•. os��41f ILA. �.�`� _,d'�t.J �.�7'vI' � •���:�,, `fit �'^, — ON aE NO / ".Y1/��I�/1.��r1:1:�13id.1�7� �; �`��w�M[<e � ���n� � •• � I I� .. . � �.c1T• L—�'r": �i��� llJec JP _ '�'•9,,, i�a"�v''i.. 111irgir�I ao �, .H•. 3. ��<. .t •R�!��\�, �� �r ,,./ e. , Div , ♦;. aim .i �ml it John Wayne Airport Arrivals May 2000 IalRm-� J:h�lt�r Y3ie=ice 1Ma � Jal n11 `ilIME tL'�Sali ,n93 •La n r 5�: UU. R 17 +F ow --I a by I la 1_fi aY 1 ,11Z7 millBnn�l�� �y + 11 ...f f l ; Y +'per• - y2'^.aw '4INP-11 o jEl'•Y1.. y M+^ei�G'1' ;`.`,, `4,.+. °ti'«4G �'' �; 14,042, + ya°.i.lhh "t`' �5 'i; if�J% ��lly.•c'If1�,,,0'1 !`.R yyrinM?`VIZ' ��Y• a 'J';� �Z WAI` EI 1f11111111 1 , / ���li-%4/��'±v"•+r Ali _ H ,�(�{{��•, fie'�W t I�7zaa�� ♦/� +,i 1I,1� �� ti *'i r � ' reyy`fi� Lji• j a_ri�♦��r/°/ a �4�%P\�l, �r� `` +®{r ySiN n « Luc ♦ �'"� �e �1.�� � � • �����\y2 � �� : . , �� � 2 \ ` �� : / � � A»� » �� » � 3 \�� y: w ��>. ���y � � � \ ~' � \ . � /\//k :� yf »� 2� »��» <°/� � ; .� `- � 5� � , � ��- �/r .� . A: � �° /' \a> � � � •� � ' � \ .:����/\�� y���<\d� �'� ��� �����p% :� >���) � /��� � � � � �� ; ��.,. •y�l�j� �a �)--.use • a+� ;, . _ - � wl 11-F•y4+��api i YGp �an i9 Kim. ri 311 ill, €ems NMI ,s,i `_• M�ngeup' ..a Is COP I� '. .f� ," r .. �:_;���,w��•"ri ��r-y+;1�`��sp CO` v ON +Prri �' ja alki`�° f'A'-1il ifYtE `,% i �l:✓C�w � �,_ ��y ,��•j t j{/ke1� atmcw�l i y�'/ 7 al �f X"W ,v ` /J`^E'efw � as ijY. s�"..ri/4�i"� ♦ �� i�� � �� � �• /�_ iL.. 1111 lu r :�� Wayne Airport Arrivals May 2000 tr•-aYl< ai�� i 91�ilyei�IUee.ir'3�I \fPlyi'11�.1 i�y`RY! .-mil IAIa ta'r'a $[l�am�^�c�c p—riMl�' �°...'i'i�t t� / MIPS ILA 01 24 mg .3 Rif i 4e� 2Y' 20 �u ,I�e �s �"I�r~I"P"♦i P :jnt f ! _ .✓s ��-, � ...i Y �:GialR� r. �� -..�- v�� �_ v Em. �a�l'Lli�y i ` r-'G"`ti 'L CyY'i � �, sY�y'Y'�.,y��"*� �.�✓.2""i—�..+.s% 17 lypw*'T`yy�. • I f�ivY.i�rJ RN Ow .w �ji' .`_ _y .'-'� III IIII ►. w �! wMAP � IF �iRN���k �4`♦,/'.I rJis ` Sa-,i r€ m- .ice �64` O>!- i ✓ 4 ANN U �'., Wei a JJ� i� �y♦ ♦ ♦ tag i :�,?$..1", I.i \ � s Apt r e l :7f y ` !1 �i + _ \v p■`gd�F. .Jy" \ JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE �` a �' r ✓�� " �c }`t b— _�- FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 � -_.mot \ r y J ! _" T, I �.M _ N 'w\ i. � ♦ �n].�; Y Y � � , � \ i v<r.-��-'-i � Zr '._ � � 1lll � ✓ .."' � . a't u,,i,�Jx �i t' 1� # _.�... __ ,\... mil/ /X, 30000.0617 �\ F 5000.00 , \., •/ \,i \ Y ru `'�+, \!!�[\ ` \ \ �. -� .. 71 4000.00ri 3000.00 2000.00 rS f✓ i� :I,;r'-.. 1.(j" �' �`..v Sri r.l �: J1000.000.00 C' r .. t 4 , f �4 ` � ��'^ { C'� � � ✓� v.{S I as IIII I 1 � _�f `' ✓. '� �'��\ t V J � - 1I III I I / ,' fl �•-�.�...^ -- i. ' I JL JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8,2001 NFI } Y r I ter, h r. a >w 16, 30000 MIT * 10000.0 < * 5000.00' rv- 40110.00 Al Ail t 1, 3000.001 JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8,2001 V ,-Vk I' I �. i�j. r, `AY�j y.:a� Y'".L> a `'��• �+w- �f./f �\ I � <it. +. C�l,'.!t r� ,1k7',' 1�i � - j i +�.µy,• ,Q � i'% _ � jP __ — rSiy I x1 k •f , yI{rr«,.�L�j 1. • .I � �� t.. , JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE 0 �. y.Y>�I« Wit' �� I �� . a +'�� �y _ FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 `+���;Y� r_.� � L'i! + t � �' y'. � •Zr.t`3i1. �' �t �i r� y� - ley y I I •!.'..t.' V � + 13 v + \ ♦ v t -� � � .«` .�� vim`' ,- f+I! li �' ♦; �'.1'.a'R- -. -. � -e� `� � +.:$"1!. i r 1��-'-- —_ t � i rr - 1�,y7T14 1 !I . i ( -`_� < u _' u ,� +.. /s���+�' K ♦ � t , IIII II- y ` 10000.00 5900.00ry _. \- I :.• ��1 /./ � � `E� ,,. y it ♦.«. < 4000.00 3000.00 y. J 2000.00i --.. r .J"4.•. lid i J�-- � .�: Si ^2., _:x'"'�.a81'., `",_ - - �.Yf r -fi � 1 / ♦ �M` t— /', J �✓ '1✓ `' Syr JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE F LIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 `fir w .�£�� 1�� '�. •/'.f '�� �: i �' � iX''�;'t��� �k�- y,. �,.�sCxi r -=.V - Feet .c �{ti'�t_ y . h"n.�, r ` � 1 ✓ f.� .ri 6{}�.� � ��t x � �Y � i JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE _ FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 Ms fir.. ,.�.cg � F � ✓Y �]� . _Y ,�iN": _� - Fee: r �� d,i?>n.l� i..'�aA4i,t 3• �;, r � t n ,_ .! rr ` ,r i r s'a JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE .� \ \ � �; 1 -- R-a>' , � '• �t ,: s�� ��t'� ,,r = FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 _-.'::T �/ '�` \ "& -.� I,�,a �Y �• S°c r t r f qt��n a�/ I � w� �, A Y �-'" �' �` .r � � ` I y � r �'Jmf ♦ f' IV, -� � r ; .,_ ,� tip✓ a /ff S ;�ar� _ ° 1 ijt'4`4� r f �';� � { � r.., t _ �� c�,i _ / j� +',i % �!l^wx'r si'a;ni (•y t /ry '�'�' _ �. .yI �� l'�r 'ti .f Y r �C`•n r ♦ �'-"�`Y„ ,i Fnf! ti.1' y= / i R Y re trfy.. rty.A !/ ff �\ � ��:' �" ✓ Al vi;�: � �': SFfI �{'m'f�'rkej�F^"' � Q _�� � 10000.09 III I I 4000.00 PJ 3900.00,' 2000.00 \ .a " ; \ ' T': �„ 1 ` n /'� l,C Rai i t • . . 1900.00i/!' . /ti-. I0.001 N, .17���� JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE y� Y- FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8,2001 A p .- hGH e� V YM. Liw f ! 1 I a ry II �,.� t��,r y� r 5.. R's. '� 1 ✓ ' /_ 6j}�`f�{ 1 ' .. � tl l - i - qt ,.� - 'l���^ram F� ..:1w1 i / ✓ '.'. 1- ', ,. �-._'. , J JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE - ;� FOR FEBRUARY S, 2001 . ry 'V.\�-- \ ti _ti \\�,\• S � 1 S r'p '. - �tf.itp,, 47 �_y Y r 8� i. ! - J 1 ' �-``�`� f � i 1 � � ` cy rr 1.. - * rw,.. rt� 4 � �' � t � r r ' Z y < ' • �� � �� it .+�Stiyi`: , r 4 w �.: �. .., '"rr ✓ , r•Y=4�Si< ` iA5 ; v vrG em �.. • .,_ � i�r •,,� a.G•9 i`, Vi x / I -, _ rI i ; I \\ .y r r rA•E =wr f 0.S'�r Ti _. ' � 4'`ff�% w ,�� o i Alt -Feet / � ' �� \ �: r ,J,,� ,'•' .��,,4 `��, � ;' -: wl IIII II -�,• / ,,/ li b F\ib ry III I I ��� / ,� ~� `�1 ��� ,wWj 3000.00 m � �. i .' ✓i'� v d' F s* r ( _ _ JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE K pi? FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 9 S 11 � 1 16,iF�•� , +�,•,.- `:a a Y , yxf ., e� -"- � i 'l�,Jky�$al t rt" J. - s � 'rid 4' .A .'...•. a.!'_ JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 =,�•�}\ \`•. t V , �jyq�6 • ...1 i s jz -L } a'�� T S .•+r - . \\~a •, A p! " i' llyx-z, uCL .g-L Alf. 4,Jr.. 1 - ..r *>t f � � - •- 1wry7L ���// ' :.\ 1� �l�i •�i�„a Il��'��\ � �� �� i� •mot \ 1 i-'r� - 30000.0011 10000.00 � \ r< III I 1 '� �\..` ' ' � : .. `(I` � ,.\\4r\ �'�', � ' S` ''fl �-e • .at,_�x-f—._ _ � - ... ,+ III II %."-: 4,�\ - III I I f i _.. `��� � y{`��41`� .i r• :.�= u III I I / /,' ,/ I \ \\ �� h ,R4»'{�•`\' e - 011 r'r '•. .. T°��i � o ryy r��Fl t c �/ • JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8,2001 • •� ' � ' tk5f .. i`ar , yt -. •rl �w< xis i t� )fir `=.:� I � ti ` - -v '+ft'� ..^ .' . • � ,yl• tyres �' .-- 3t ��ti��i t r - " •r �� >Y.Cp ..+� �•r yfTcr s^ �� y„ y +�.y:y j y TY • 4. t;',.�'i � <,'.- �;--�•r�' r�. YvY .• yy, rt� _' • � ...ram r�3rn4i S'i°kr x y � � t'.. r y n '� � - � tlyr r � , � 1 • t(s e ^ r.,'�*e :' � � :i7 � •., ��I ' i�• ti '''� �t���` �� * �i • n f;,rib � l- -,--�- � v f rvP v r S III I I � �...r) � ! f ` _ , � ,. "" • 'y.r t �/' ■ - III I I ; y �;• , � � '� ; � � � :�. u III I I ;lr� �. A� j` ' � •} s i\�, R���i`,—�"��x..{�!� III I I / u �' }' ,•�., \ �:y ��-1��� ' .r- -� -. ���_ fi'.G ` Ji \ �. ' _�� ��..• "ins\1? _ �°.'+'.. � r JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8,2001 At........ ........ L;7 al xz I If' /Z NO Nt" ty /of '/•• t: � ( � Sr R r� -Feet �• �- ,:/ I I I I 11 �. �• c 5 ^ r s d— JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ;r- FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE _ FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 r. F y n� - it 1 \ tie f ayt t+r yNi r' x JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 r� ` _ :. ai •. y� � Pi y � r4; ��.Ta,$ 4r _2 4 it ,r. '`✓ice �+ I •` O {.. �`-�i} �"'� �r 'r •f{ .. � `•'�w�5�'• �• , � 4 f 1_ {5 p. 3.l��rt� p �•r�+, 'dA a' ; �.{ k "� � J i� ii 4,i t'' Ftv+i� 1, ✓Ji�� �'.y `t' 4, IN Ali - Feet X 917 30000.00 III I r ! \T, 0V i III I yy At I.� - III ' aF+ .�i" III 1000 A41 J S t, '�•. n '' 1 '',•_ L t tt S A Tot �.-__ 'yi.' ' •�` `t /'' o y, r r' t'!C r%•,��Tri ,`� , .. '. "- a ti JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE �/ FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 �` '7�e, � ". " S.T.• sr r:t d w 7� '. �� Ff r_r 'j -� t: ;,_. r . - �_�.-sue (�2�Kf :. rt.r�+a �• �+'�. /: `.4 �l `� � r-r 3..r� 1su-j- � '' Y ♦ ..�.- .,_ Ti-._ i t Y: ,ti �. .. ✓-� � ...� �,f _ (� f 1 { i . max: � a t � ti C�, t a ' ' 5` ' ' ° � � .t' X✓/.' ;.,err a r e.� {,✓'rS •'. � `;� � at �`". pi 10000.001 w Alt -Feet � � � ; i • I :'-��� � .." ,r'/�r., � �i\ � �, pr , :. \� III I I - 1 /, +• � �VC` � � At � �� ° � 3090.001 S � � ♦ f tv' rNs J C �. rc ZT JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 Fd y � �l!" i,' N �� t� ♦ ,([H- "'.'s�yy•gs d/.� � y�r�' '' op ell '- ,�� r', ^ S. 4 d a `� .yam / s:•. • �, v_ y?C". 7r�1 , t , iY+ . a s F Yarl f }' r# . i / \ _�� � 'y �, � ,t. < n w- '. r '........-•rf�-- .,..ate-�-�ri ' - ` ��+.�:.�� _i� ,/ � �t }, � �. �, i { �lZa _ r �..-, •s �A d`Lr'E'v Nam, y7��j�4 l v - IN x ,�� 4j '+pi c.-4i°y" xtili 'S+7'x•e� , ` i / � '��K}�" �l .�.. �\ Y+ ,' r sh ,�: JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE 'sr ` y FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 - � � . V '^... � !MF �.• i �� 4 � ���i y1 4 (.� t 11� 1�•^J: �� • ' 1 i T Jy .Y j '•� 4i /ly�� G �... i ? � 1C.` ^r �1 ``��"'� � M 5•f_ .. � _ .. Y.'• fv �}�1' l __ 1 ti- l,l / 1 4 ♦ Y•9 1 .Tad rt . f % �ti 11 / / G ;gilt - Feet / / pi 10008.00ipi 5000.00 V. � h'�� � •P f 1.�}y + d Y,a„A'S 4Y. '��i' ff�y�� 1�i y I 1 Y hST'.! }� Y` 4�� :y� :�f� • ,Z. ,},� •P t� f ^i � �Y �+.#�� ��.-.. •R � y Y �q.� J• �'.` � /.^ _ � JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE t I r/rt - nn �`+ K •+,� t a, � -� �� ��' ,,- z•�,Y.- FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE N.. f4Y* 'T'% FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 51 j• t i 4] s ij p ;1��j,+Fy��i% tl • '%^1'� 'Vj ,• • . � 4 1 6f ,k... ,� '� yry .4; � t 5tr `S..w��lir LL -• 3,—.....,�- Alt - Feet III 1 1 I 4000.00 3000.00 lb �l III II-' 000.00 I# 1 s to A�{I� JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 �v /\ ✓ JI' } 1 Yt �..R '-1 ~J '.~ 1�14 ��' i�w��� !y ���I')� } ! Yrq '{p,�i 91Y It Feet I W. 5000.00�I�Ri 4000.00\ �� .� �,..., \ \ •�.) / b`t,. \ \ \`\ \,- 3000.00 2000.00i 10 III I 1 � �p y �W14a � t, ?.ES r tt ttT, r .n. e •'Jr�; � � � I �i ' ` � 4 . + - JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ..�1\ � � P, , ,, � •., o ,F'•` ,�+`� ' +` �#� ': �' � j�F,Y.✓ �-�. FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 '^e.. �11��\ '! � F � � ''� n'�1'y' a J 7, �,���(,.� i `,I�',,�; /1`t e n "� �,j k4,.: �• �___ _ owl - __ \ 1�... \t \\ _f �. \ , ;'i r f_._. fit + +Y ��� rJS 5y��.^'^'i33ii 4r - -1}�-+i+' +r- • ]•, .., -; / �, _— tC` � . ' �, yv r i ?C"'. � ,� r It ,•�� 'T. a � � �`�� ; �-sc t � •.�- � , � _ ` i i� � � �" ` jf ,f---'• yC = l;� \ � Jf��jppp'��'..�I�' � \� � L�rv�`� �` � � �. t'.i � : 3 �+I � t .�_ _ _ / _- l L �. �l �j tffi , �\•,iry„ry -��, ri�-,-.`+]r'"�''t+-¢,>� sf� � F .III I I � \ 'ti... s .: � t.., , e �1 -',` S,` � � C i",�'�� ' _ •� rk4 �� III 1 1 ` ^ :+./ � ��` � • I �.- t �x \ � A Y i f 11 4j 555C"`�4 •' r"i .` 3� F�PGrf' r A ] , Y- \' IY xStr wJ'r°^<I. •tNr :/f �� ��� ; '1 / �'11 .. JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE �..\.. ' a ; N X ,u9"j f /J 1 •% -�,; rA �r ! r'1::.. +r's FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY8, 2001 T � � ��' 4 J .. Q —� ANY •St Gl�r i ♦ L^ ' - I. -'. /`h'� � � 1"�' < "1 - � >� 1� I; kT'Fi,^S cam+ ':�Y f� �a . ": j{Z` ^-1•+,..,\ -1 a•� '! `C - t � �''ii4, ~ , V+. �t ': �' �, a .. f Y 1 �. }�i 7 ��r 1 1 ! / , M� 4 _ .� z'" f ! 1 I 1 •"' 3 t4 `e ' • ;� b �'t!i � '" ,,�"' I � �T`. � �../ iu >.' _,•. \ 11 i �r \ �� _ `J L 1, �.. I <~' is r=s' T r to �` t.`'� ` ✓ I �+ r._ 'yam 1 A ,e �` '-'s• 't2�., - � �, `�.. ,-- \� % CC 't Ut -Feet i � / � `• ` � Y .� �- %��' ., >r�- r: f 5000.0Q ry 4000.00 rij 111 I I �.'�I s i! F .H r• f �• r. III RL M f 1 �a� 01 w � n i w!l•� + - w n r � �.: • ...:.PJK. .!� ,F � � ice'\ 3 xR hti L 1 ti JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 ,r r- v ram, r n� .a + n q IT ti: �..� `•�' 1i 11 IVc r� * ) � � I J�IiM� t � �tl � .h __-'• __ JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE ,( +4' \ r I ri ;'� } "�✓ ; N%a x;,� �'Y FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 WC/'`' rJ .. •' \ y y // 1-�""y'-�Rt,. _; �J'ir ',J t °A .. ' `' t� . \ �\ '> ✓� i .r �^�"_s. I �. • , � i✓ : %r � f^2a.2i�:. �.-T•:a r'ri{ �� b- ^ _�. _ 1 \/ 1 '1 s •f .. y f r f 1 �' a� .0 -3" y''w' sr-i'. k' t_�.• . \ ORANGE COUNTYAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION PROGRAM: SPEAKER: DATE and TIME: MENU: PLACE. COST. RESERVATIONS. PRESENTS ITS APRIL 2001 PROGRAM THE GREAT PARK On March 5, 2002, Orange County voters will have the opportunity to vote on the initiative for the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve. This initiative, if approved, would repeal Measure A, which requires the closed El Toro Air Station to be used as a commercial airport. The proposed park will include science, art, and history museums, athletic fields, gardens, hiking and equestrian trails, parkland, a central lake, and several other amenities on the 7-square mile site. Join OCAPA's lunch program to learn about the future of El Toro. Chris Mears, Council Member, City of Irvine Tuesday, May 29, 2001 Registration: 11:45a.m. —12:00 p.m. Luncheon Program: 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Chef selected buffet lunch with entrde, choice of 12 salads, bread and soft drink with dessert and coffee. The Turnip Rose (Board Room) — 300 South Flower Street, Orange, CA. Phone number is (714) 978-7020. $20 per person (pre -registered APA member) $25 per person (late, at -the -door, and non-APA member) $18 per student or financial hardship (pre -registered) Call Margaret Brakob at (949) 553-1427 or e-mail your reservation at mbrakob(a,hogleireland.com by 12:00 p.m., Friday, May 25, 2001. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FORYOUR RESERVATION. UNCANCELLED RESERVATIONS AND CANCELLATIONS AFTER MONDAYMARCH 27, 2001, WILL BE BILLED. AS A NON-PROFIT GROUP, WE CANNOT ABSORB THE COST OF UNCANCELLED REGISTRATIONS AFTER ARRANGEMENTS I4AVE BEEN MADE. THANK YOU. Contact program organizer Jeff Roberson of Hogle-Ireland, Inc. at (949) 553-1427 with any program questions you may have. PLEASE POST THIS NOTICE IN A PROMINENT PLACEI , ,s. June 2001—Awords Banquet From South County: Take 5 North to 57 North Esit Orangewood Ave. Turn Right on to Orangewood Ave. Turn Right on Main Street Turn Right on Chapman Ave. Turn Right on to S. Flower St. 300 S. Flower Street From North County: TakeSNouth to S7North Felt OrangewoodAve. Turn Right on to Orangewood Ave Turn Right on Malii Street Turn Right on Chapman Ave. Turn Right on to S. Flower St. 300S. Flower Street From the 22: Take 21 East (or West) to Monk Exit Orangewood Ayr. Turn Right on to OrangewoodAve. Tirrn Right on Main Sired Turn Right on Chapman Ave. Turn Right onto S. Flower St. 300 S. FlowerStred From South 57. Take the Chapman Ave &-it (2n, Chapman Evil) Turn left on to Chapman Turn Right on Flower 300S. Flower Street AMERMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 6)UNGE MNTYSECTION PO. Box.11401 Irvine CA 92619-1e01 12178 thAm wood City or Newport Baob Pit Dept r o on 1768 tvawport Batch, CA 9265MI5 s '���58'���3'upport OCAWA„Pkggl�At1/�A(,1,1,6„4,8�1�1„11„i„I„�II,I 05-16-01 04:57pm From -CLERK OF THE BOARD 7148344439 T-444 P.04/05 F-624 MEMO 9 Office of Cynthia F."C6aW I b Chair Of The Bo#4bl S, ,#Kisors �150RS Supervisor, Fourth District - DATE: May 3, 2001 TO: Darlene Bloom, Clerk of the Board FROM: Cynthia P. Coad, Chair of the Board SUBJECT: Supplemental May 08, 2001, Board Agenda I am requesting approval of Fourth District's request for a supplemental for May 08, 2001; Board of Supervisor's Meeting to discuss the recommended actions for John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. The recommended actions are as follows: That the Board authorizes the Airport Director, in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach, to commence preparation of an environmental document that would analyze the impacts of an amendment to the JWA Settlement Agreement that would conform to the conditions outlined. That the Board direct the CEO to negotiate a cooperative agreement with the City of Newport Beach pursuant the CEQA Guideline that would identify the role of the City and County would play in preparation of the environment document. Please review Attachment'W'. C: Board of Supervisors CEO County Counsel Grand Jury 05.16-01 04157pm From -CLERK OF THE BOARD 7148344439 T-444 P.05/05 F-624 ATTACHMENT A John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amended Term. Sheet Curfew: Existing curfew remains in effect until 1/l/2026 Facilities: County authorized to design and seek permits for 4 additional gates and a corresponding increase in terminal holding areas. County authorized to begin construction as of 111/2005. County also authorized to increase concession/rerail space in the terminal as proposed in recent study. Noise Classes: Immediately combine Class A ADD (now 39) and Class AA ADD (now 34) so that — until the 4 gates are operational — 73 Class A ADD would be authorized. Operations: County would be authorized, when the four additional gates are operational, to immediately increase noise regulated departures from 73 A ADD to 85 A ADD and immediately increase seat capacity to correspond to an increase from 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP. Cargo operations limited to 2 Class A ADD with current restrictions. These Provisions would expire 1/1/ 2016. Noise Limits: Class A and Class E noise levels remain the same until 1/1/2026. Class A noise Ievels reduced if and to the extent that carriers elect to take advantage of a trade -out plan (such as 2 B757 Class A ADD for each MD 80 Class A ADD) that eliminates loudest aircraft. GA: General aviation noise ordinance and GA facilities remain in place until 1/1/2021. JWA Planning: County would be authorized, on 1/l/2016, to commence preparation of any modification to the "master plan" or airport layout plan for JWA that could increase capacity. No restrictions on modifications to the master plan or airport layout plan for . WA that are necessary to preserve -or enhance safety or to comply with FAA regulations. N70'01 05-16-01 64:56pm From -CLERK OF THE BOARD 7148344439 T-444 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD Or SUPERVISORS MINUTE ORDER May 08, 2001 Submirrins Aeeneypeaarratenr: Chair Coad P.02/05 F-624 Consider authorizing preparation of an environmental document to analyze impacts of proposed amendments to John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement; and direct County Executive Office to negotiate a cooperative agreement with Newport Beach 17Le following is action taken bg the Board of Supervisors: APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED Q OTHER APPROVED AS AMENDED TO (1) DIRECT THE CEO TO INITIATE THE APPROPRIATE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING PROCESS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, TO EVALUATE THE EXTENSION OF THE JWA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEYOND 12/31 /05; (2) DIRECT THAT THIS CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING EVALUATION CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LISTED IN THIS AGENDA ITEM AS ATTACHMENT A; (3) DIRECT THE CEO AND AIRPORT DIRECTOR REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD ON 5/22101 WITH A PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DELINEATING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION PROPOSALS TO BE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL Continued on attached page... Unanimous 13 (1) SMITH: Y (2) SILVA:'Y' (3) SPIT2ER: N (4) COAD: Y (5) WILSON: N Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Absrafn; X=Excused; B.O.=Board Order Documents accompanying this matter: C1 Resolution(s) O Ordinances(s) Q Contract(s) Item No. 837B Special Notes: Copies sent to,�'"' jzG._bw d certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Ordcr adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, Slate of California. DARLENE J. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board Dcputy 05-16-01 04:57pm From -CLERK OF THE BOARD 7148344439 T-444 P.03/05 F-824 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTE ORDER May OS, 2001 The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors: APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O OTHER 19 Unanimous ❑ (1) SMITH: Y (2) SILVA; Y (3) SPTTZLR: N (4) COAD: Y (5) WILSON: N Vnre Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Absrain; X=Excused; B.D.=Board Order QUALITY ACT FINDING PROCESS; AND (4) DIRECT THAT THE CEO PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION PROCESS Item No. S37 Public Notice of Availability MCAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis Public Review Period Commences Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 573 Supplemental Analysis for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport. Location: MCAS El Toro is centrally located in Orange County. The site is generally bounded by Interstate 5 (1-5), Alton Parkway, Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-133), and Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR-241) Description: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 573 for an Airport System Master Plan for commercial airports in Orange County, including an Airport Master Plan for the development and operation of a commercial airport at the site of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), El Toro (OCX), the development, operation and use of various aviation, compatible and revenue support land uses at El Toro, and an Airport Master Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA), Orange County (SNA) (collectively "ASMP"), a Base Transition Plan, together with related land use plans and actions, regulations, permits, approvals and related activities for the development and use of the site at MCAS El Toro (or the "project"). Scope of Review. MCAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis (DSA) presents a new Air Quality section that replaces the previously circulated air quality section 4.5 of Draft EIR No.573; revisions to the Transportation and Circulation section 4.3 of Draft EIR 573, primarily addressing the freeway impacts analysis; new Alternatives Analysis for Air Quality and revised Alternatives Analysis for Transportation and Circulation; a Supplemental Phasing Analysis (Chapter 4.0 of Draft EIR No. 573); and other Environmental Issues. The Draft Supplemental Analysis Identifies significant impacts related to air quality. In addition, significant transportation and circulation impacts were identified, which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the County requests that reviewers of the DSA limit their comments to the information contained in the DSA. Review Locations: The Draft Supplemental Analysis is currently available for review at the County of Orange, MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Santa Ana, California, 92701, and at all County libraries during regular business hours. Comment Period., The comment period will commence on May 1, 2001. Comments must be submitted in writing and be received by 5 p.m., June 15, 2001, and must be addressed to: County of Orange MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority Attn: Mr. Bryan Speegle 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-834-3000 Comments may also be transmitted by e-mail at EIR573@ocgov.com or facsimile (7141834-6120). However, these methods of transmission are less dependable than the Postal Service in that technical problems are more commun and the County cannot - - — guarantee the availability of receiving equipment, particularly at the very end of a review period. The County will not consider as part of the CEQA public review process, e- mail comments in excess of 500 words, and will not consider attachments to e-mail. Further, a postal return address is necessary so that a notice of the availability of the County's response(s) may be sent to commenters, should the County decide to send such notices. Lastly, the County cannot accept comments on video or audiotape unless a commenter's qualified disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act renders the commenter unable to submit comments in a standard written format. PROJECT LOCATION MAP uxL. ANA f TYfTN t NVNe ro,,,�xuu A. e W FOxT y_ xucx S unuox vrzAo Po uouxA eix. uus W.. A9 P � uxA CC� IACN �' uauxA xwvn , N No Setla eex ANAN CAOOTPANO County of Orange C a l i f o r n i a Gary Simon Executive Director MCAS El lbro Local Redevelopment Authority 10 Civic Center Plaza Second Floor Santa Ana, California 92701.4062 Te(: (714) 834-3000 Far: (714) 834-6120 April 28, 2001 TO: Distribution SUBJECT: Draft Supplemental Analysis Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro, including a Base Transition Plan, and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport Dear Recipient: In accordance with Sections 21091, 21092, and 21104 of the California CEQA Statutes and Articles 7 and 13 of the CEQA Guidelines, a copy of the Draft Supplemental Analysis for EIR No. 573 for the subject project is attached for your review and comment. The Notice of Availability is also attached for your information. MCAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis (DSA) presents a new Air Quality section that replaces the previously circulated air quality section 4.5 of Draft EIR No.573; revisions to the Transportation and Circulation section 4.3 of Draft EIR 573, primarily addressing the freeway impacts analysis; new Alternatives Analysis for Air Quality and revised Alternatives Analysis for Transportation and Circulation; a Supplemental Phasing Analysis (Chapter 4.0 of Draft EIR No. 573); and other Environmental Issues. The Draft Supplemental Analysis identifies significant impacts related to air quality, transportation and circulation. Mitigation measures are also identified for environmental impacts identified in the Supplemental Analysis. Your comments on the Draft Supplemental Analysis must be in writing or by email, and should be received by the MCAS E► Toro Master Development Program Office no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2001. Email comments must not exceed 500 words and must not include attachments. Email comments may be addressed to: EIR5730ocsov.com If you have any questions, please contact the MCAS El Toro Master Development Program at (714) 834-3000. Written comments should be addressed to: Attachment County of Orange MCAS El Toro LRA Attn: Bryan Speegle 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor Santa Ana, CA 927024048 Public Notice of Availability MCAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis Public Review Period Commences Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 573 Supplemental Analysis for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport. Location: MCAS El Toro is centrally located in Orange County. The site is generally bounded by Interstate 5 (1-5), Alton Parkway, Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-133), and Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR-241) Description: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 573 for an Airport System Master Plan for commercial airports in Orange County, including an Airport Master Plan for the development and operation of a commercial airport at the site of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), El Toro (OCX), the development, operation and use of various aviation compatible and revenue support land uses at El Toro, and an Airport Master Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA), Orange County (SNA) (collectively "ASMP"), a Base Transition Plan, together with related land use plans and actions, regulations, permits, approvals and related activities for the development and use of the site at MCAS El Toro (or the "project"). Scope of Review. MICAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis (DSA) presents a new Air Quality section that replaces the previously circulated air quality section 4.5 of Draft EIR No.573; revisions to the Transportation and Circulation section 4.3 of Draft EIR 573, primarily addressing the freeway impacts analysis; new Alternatives Analysis for Air Quality and revised Alternatives Analysis for Transportation and Circulation; a Supplemental Phasing Analysis (Chapter 4.0 of Draft EIR No. 573); and other Environmental Issues. The Draft Supplemental Analysis identifies significant impacts related to air quality. In addition, significant transportation and circulation impacts were identified, which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the County requests that reviewers of the DSA limit their comments to the information contained in the DSA. Review Locations: The Draft Supplemental Analysis is currently available for review at the County of Orange, MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor, Santa Ana, California, 92701, and at all County libraries during regular business hours. Comment Period: The comment period will commence on May 1, 2001. Comments must be submitted in writing and be received by 5 p.m., June 15, 2001, and must be addressed to: County of Orange MCAS El Toro Local Redevelopment Authority Attn: Mr. Bryan Speegle 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-834-3000 Comments may also be transmitted by e-mail at EIR573@ocgov.com or facsimile (714/834-6120). However, these methods of transmission are less dependable than the Postal Service in that technical problems are more common and the County cannot --- guarantee the availability of receiving equipment, particularly at the very end of a review period. The County will not consider as part of the CEQA public review process, e- mail comments in excess of 500 words, and will not consider attachments to e-mail. Further, a postal return address is necessary so that a notice of the availability of the County's response(s) may be sent to commenters, should the County decide to send such notices. Lastly, the County cannot accept comments on video or audiotape unless a commenter's qualified disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act renders the commenter unable to submit comments in a standard written format. PROJECT LOCATION MAP Gary Simon Executive Director MCAS El Toro 1.odal Redevelopment Authority 10 Civic Center Plaza Second Floor Santa Ana, California 92701-4062 Tel: (714) 834-3000 Fax.' (714)834-6120 April 28, 2001 TO: Distribution SUBJECT: Draft Supplemental Analysis Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro, including a Base Transition Plan, and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne 'Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport Dear Recipient: In accordance with Sections 21091, 21092, and 21104 of the California CEQA Statutes and Articles 7 and 13 of the CEQA Guidelines, a copy of the Draft Supplemental Analysis for EIR No. 573 for the subject project is attached for your review and comment. The Notice of Availability is also attached for your information. MCAS El Toro Draft EIR No. 573 Draft Supplemental Analysis (DSA) presents a new Air Quality section that replaces the previously circulated air quality section 4.5 of Draft EIR No.573; revisions to the Transportation and Circulation section 4.3 of Draft EIR 573, primarily addressing the freeway impacts analysis; new Alternatives Analysis for Air Quality and revised Alternatives Analysis for Transportation and Circulation; a Supplemental Phasing Analysis (Chapter 4.0 of Draft EIR No. 573); and other Environmental Issues. The Draft Supplemental Analysis identifies significant impacts related to air quality, transportation and circulation. Mitigation measures are also identified for environmental impacts identified in the Supplemental Analysis. Your comments on the Draft Supplemental Analysis must be in writing or by email, and should be received by the MCAS El Toro Master Development Program Office no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2001. Email comments must not exceed 500 words and must not include attachments. Email comments may be addressed to: EIR573na,ocgov.com If you have any questions, please contact the MCAS El Toro Master Development Program at (714) 834-3000. Written comments should be addressed to: Attachment County of Orange MCAS El Toro LRA Attn: Bryan Speegle 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 I ---� -- �— i • schwi, M lhnrchr. s Rc.iJrnn:d Statute Miles D r72 a l Exhibit 4-9 John NN aN ne :airport 1998 Contours ( N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB Statute Miles 0 r,� Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours CNEL 60. 65. 70, and 75 dB • khad. � t.hun:hr, � Re „drnu;tl Statute Miles D r" Z Exhibit 4-9 John %� avne airport 1998 Contours ( 'N IT I. 60, 65, 70, 0 and 75 dB 0 MOitirchc Statute Miles Exhibit 4-9 n John wayne :Airport 1998 Contours ('NJj,60,b5,70,and,;dB h�..�l � llwnhr, . � Rc,i.l�ronsl Statute Miles 0 rmO72 t Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne .-airport 1998 Contours ( \ EL 01), 0;. -0, and 75 d13 W 614V FIRAI 14 A 1177alli.707m • 4h.rh � Church.> � Ne^idena:d Statute Mile, 0 r" Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne :airport 1998 Contours ( *N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB I 11.III N�{♦ Rcmdomal Statute Miles 0 rm"1 Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours CNFI - 60. 61;. 70. and 71 dB _I T— r • tiduxlh t h, hr+ +! Rc+iJrnnal Statute Miles o r` 2 Exhibit 4-9 John 'Wayne :airport 1998 Contours ( NEL 60. 65, 70, and 75dB }�--�--t- -- • �.hul� � t hurchr. Rcmdmml - 5tatu c 0 r� Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne airport 1998 Contours C NEL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB • tichirl. � lhunhr> RL m,icnnal Statute Mile- 0 r, Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours ('\EL 60. 65. 70, a11d'5 dB I II TI I -L • 1 µ _t.4 I _.__ �- ,� • • � ! � •._ r • I+A • — r a I � t.hure h.•. s Rc.iJcnnal Statute Miles o r, Exhibit 4-9 .1ohn Wavne .kirport 1998 ('ontours ( 'N F.1. 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB � lhun:hri Statute Moe- 0 r -- 1 '^�1 � . ub�1 Pu� P_ +v Exhibit 4-9 John Wane Airport 1998 Contours ( \ EL 60, 6S. 70, and 75 dB Lq .+. Ilk '\ Statute Miles Exhibit 4-9 .luhn Wayne Airport 1998 Contours i`N E L 60, 65, 70, a nd 75 d B • Schad. Rcadrnital Statute Miles 0 rn J l � Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne airport 1998 Contours C'NEL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB • �chals lhurche, Statute Miles o r"� Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne :airport 1998 Contours ( \ Fl, 60, GS, 70, and 75 dB Statute Mile 0 1 40 ON Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours ( N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB 1 L� — L r • .j • <. , I i r t • • :had, 4 hurchr. Rc. acnncd Statute Miles 0 r n Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours CNF•I. 60. 65. 71). and 75 dB yf_ • �h�"h � Uuvchr> � Kc.idrnnal Statute Miles 0 rs1 �eL mat Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne :airport 1998 ('ontours N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB • �h�,d. � lhurch,•> Rcmdcnoml Statute Miles 0 7"1 Exhibit 4-9 John WaN ne :airport 1998 Contours ( \ EL 60, 65, 70, and 71.5 dB Statute Mile: Exhibit 4-9 John Wayne :airport 1998 Contours ( N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB IT IA I I � r M • • 'IN !;__) t� lhurc hr. � Ite.illcnnal Statute Miles Exhibit 4-9 o 7,n John Wavne Airport 1998 ('ontours ( N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB • �eh„d. � Uwn:hr� � Rcoulrnnal Statute Miles 0 rmmom2 Exhibit 4-9 John N aN ne :airport 1998 Contours (\ E1.60, 65, 70• and 75 dB 1 ~ _ l f �.. ! IJ 4 is— y �• s`'; y I •• � I o • 1 • ti.hNh � Clmmhr, � Rc,idrnnal Statute Miles Exhibit 4-9 0 r' Z luhn NN anr �irpurt 1998 Contours ( N I.I. 60, 65, 70• and 75 dB I, � Re.i.lrnuel Statute Miles 0 Exhibit 4-9 John ne .-airport 1998 Contours ( `EL 60, 65, 70. and 75 dB � Itc.i.lrnnal Statute Miles 0 7`1 Exhibit 4-9 John Wavnc Airport 1998 Contours ( N EL 60, 0%, 70, and 7S dB • kh�•d� � tauirchr> i Rc,idenual Statute Miles 0 rmmn Exhibit 4-9 John NVavnc Airport 1998 Contours CNEL 60, 65, 70, and 79 dB 7— 1 I i 1 _ f ■ + • . ti,;h...l. � C Iwreh.. � R�..IJrnn;d Statute Miles o r , Exhibit 4-9 Iohn NN .1% ne airport 1998 Contours < IN EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB \II�IF�II � i.IIIIIL hi'+ IlceldO mal - - Statute Miles 0 r"1 J i � Exhibit 4-9 John Wavne airport 1998 Contours ( EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB EMENT AGREEMENT • SETTLED A LAWSUIT FILED BY THE COUNTY AGAINST THE CITY/OTHERS • LAWSUIT ASKED COURT TO APPROVE THE EIR FOR THE JWA MASTER PLAN • JWA MASTER PLAN PROPOSED A NEW TERMINAL AND INCREASED FLIGHTS (10.4 x�MAP') • APPROVED BY THE CITY, COUNTY, AWG AND SPON IN 1985 AGREEMENT IN A NUTSH TERM IS 20 YEARS (EXPIRES DEC. 31, 2005) • LIMITS "NOISE REGULATED" FLIGHTS TO 73 AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURES (ADD) • AMENDS MASTER PLAN TO REDUCE SIZE OF TERMINAL TO 338,000 SQ/FT AND NUMBER OF GATES TO 14 • PREVENTS COUNTY FROM CHANGING CURFEW RICTIONS ON F • THREE CLASSES OF AIRCRAFT - CLASS A (NOISIEST), CLASS AA (LESS NOISY), AND CLASS E (QUIETEST) • CLASS A LIMITED TO 39 ADD • CLASS AA LIMITED TO 34 ADD • CLASS E - LIMITED BY MAPCAP • ADD - AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURES PASS E N G E • 8.4 MILLION ANNUAL PASSENGERS (MAP) - ALSO KNOWN AS MAPCAP" • IMPLEMENTED THROUGH ACCESS PLAN AND ""SEAT CAPACITY ALLOCATION" • ALLOCATE ABOUT 13,000,000 SEATS • ASSUME A LOAD FACTOR (PERCENTAGE OF SEATS FILLED) CILITIES CONSTRAI • TERMINAL LIMITED TO 337,900 SQ/FT, INCLUDING NO MORE THAN 271,000 SQ/FT FEET OF LEASABLE SPACE • 14 GATES • NO REMOTE TERMINAL • NO MORE THAN 8400 PARKING SPACES PLUS NORTH CLEAR ZONE S • CURFEW REMAINS IN FORCE (10:00 PM - 7:00 AM) • GENERAL AVIATION NOISE ORDINANCE REMAINS IN FORCE • PASSENGERS LOAD ONLY THROUGH J ETWAYS AT GATE - NO HARDSTAN DI NG COUNTYMEWPORT BEACH NEGOTATIONS • CITY CALLS FOR COUNTY/CITY STAFF COOPERATION TO EXTEND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (AUG. 2000) • COUNTY DIRECTS STAFF TO WORK WITH CITY (DEC. 2000) • FAA AND AIR CARRIER INVOLVEMENT • MAR. 2002 "CENTRAL PARK" INITIATIVE WHAT DID THE MAY 8, 2001? 0 ON • SELECTED A PREFERRED PROJECT FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA AND AUTHORIZED CEO TO INITIATE CEQA PROCESS • DIRECTED CEO TO PREPARE A M.O.U. THAT SELECTED ALTERNATIVES AND DEFINE CITY/COUNTY ROLE IN EIR • SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON MOU ON MAY 22 THE P OJECT = NO CHAN • NO CHANGE IN CURFEW (UNTIL 2026) • EXISTING CARGO OPERATIONS (TWO PER DAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK WITH 3:30 ARRIVAL/7:30 DEPARTURE) • NO CHANGE TO GENERAL AVIATION (GA) NOISE ORDINANCE (GANO) OR GA FACILITIES (UNTI L 2021) • NO CHANGE IN RUNWAY (STILL 5,700 FT.) THE PROJECT MMEDIATE "'CHAN • CHANGE FROM PASSENGER "CAP" TO A SEAT CAPACITY ""CAP" • ELIMINATE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLASS A AND CLASS AA - 73 CLASS A • AUTHORIZED TO INCREASE THE CONCESSION/RETAIL SPACE WITHIN TERMINAL IMMEDIATELY THE PROJECT POTENTIAL CHANGE • MAY BEGIN TO CONSTRUCT 4 GATES ON 01/01/05 • WHEN GATES ARE OPERATIONAL CAN INCREASE ADD FROM 73 TO 85 AND `"MAP" FROM 8.4 TO 9.8 THE PROJECT TENTIAL CHANGES • POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN NOISE LEVELS AND INCREASE IN FLIGHTS IF AIR CARRIERS OK A "'TRADEOUT" PLAN. • COUNTY AGREES NOT TO DO MASTER PLANNING UNTIL 01/01/2016, THE PROCESS • BOARD/COUNCIL APPROVE MOU ON 5/22/01 • NOTICE OF PREPARATION ON 6/1/01 • RETAIN CONSULTANTS BY 6/10/01 • PREPARE EIR AND ISSUE NOTICE OF COMPLETION ON 12/1/01 • CITY PAYS FOR EIR THE PROCESS (CON • WE WILL MEET REGULARLY WITH CORRIDOR CITY REPRESENTATIVES • WE WILL BE MEETING WITH THE FAA, AIR CARRIERS, AND AIR CARGO CARRIERS AS WELL AS SPON & AWG • WE WILL PROBABLY MEET WITH OCBC AND BUSINESS LEADERS • WE ARE OPEN TO ALL SUGGESTIONS f ` • • • .. 1 `� TV, Aw 0 Schools i = Churches - — Statute ut� eExhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNFL Contours 60. 65, and 70 dB OUR • xh«,is v Churche+ s. Rcsiden ial •;' Statute Miles " Exhibit 5.2-4 0 John Wavne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\ EL Contours 60, 65, and ?0 dB M • Schools J Cliumlies Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 0 1 2 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB • Schools Churches fm Rcstdcntial Statute Miles l 16 �i ,,... i JIL dmf� • �- mot. - Exhibit 5.2-4 ,John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB 1 19 I � � CZSchoo.Ols � � �v m Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\ EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB —� I W !_ �—-1q i I I K f 1:3 sy' • --• - . -� go LI t T ? N, Chun:hes 3 Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 n rn John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CAEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB • SLhMs Churches Residential IL Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 1 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F c CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB � School, Churches ? Residential C 1 Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN IA ('ontours 60. 6;, ,md'0 dB ••• • t •• Vsi .. • � YYY� Chh ry j hurcnhes \ m Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John NN ay ne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\ El, Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB 1 1 � 1C}1IX115 .`-wJ I � C'hun:he; � Rc,idcntial Statutes Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNF1. Cmitours 60. 65. and 70 (113 I * sch ools ' ools = Churches m Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN FI . Contours 60, 65, a n d '10 dB Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wavne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB St �s Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F (A EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB Statute Miles L • Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB —4- -T- f Schools• Chun -he Reden im l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statue__ u - te Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 1 2 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB TJ I • Schools I m Churches o Residential Statute Miles — "O� it • 6a t 64D • 3 Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\ EL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB 5 m Chun hes Rcsidmtial Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 c r�2 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65. and 70 dB Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 0- �2 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\EI, Contom-,� 60, 65. and 70 dB . J Y*�� s Z { _r40 t t ! 0 schwls w Churches m Residential __S� _��s Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\E1, Contours 60. 6�;, anti '70 dB ! 0 Schad.• = Churches \ j > Residmtial Stag_ uteM illeess Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne .airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB II 1 i ZT`; n. • % i r• --it--�l- -- ` • r • L •• 1 q • \ p,p� S• r • Gt FA, • r' • Schools C'hun:hes Rc Am ial Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 0 immn John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNTEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 1�2 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB f Rcsidmtia Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN Ff. Contours 60, 6-5, and 70 dB Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 0 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB MCAS EL TORO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OVIII1 t♦ AJ IIC t11I PUI t I GAI bVbtl ISIMI IIAtIVC I' CNE[, Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB = dL {fir HOF • Schools C Jurchcs a Rcsidmtial Statute Miles 4 Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CN EI. Contours 60. 65. and 70 dB I • Schools m Churches 11MI Residential Statute Miles 0 72 Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F C\El, Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB T_, lk '• •. aPAR • tl' Tt � • Schoolsi Ch7hes ® Residential Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60. 65, and 70 dB F i-"t"''x xf .*,a st•. �• rt I1 ,1 ,r rf"/. \*��,` %` ✓yw f/.r+v-', ,'IJ�FF¢ v JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2001 zz r: ,ram, c' ��! � � Z t�� c. `ter .lTt P ta. +'�.. ,a '^£v Y ♦ �� _ r � r� s j� icy / /' ✓ I' S'J f``- Icy _ - \ // �'+ y� �Y �� -�� F t e ''" �x y' ,.. - ' _ a l I� ! ♦ ,�`� i kr�d jsL i�} ti yF�^,y.,,•'+r. Y � } � I/ rr � JWA ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE h •. c f F FLIGHT TRACKS BY ALTITUDE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2001 1. u �r `. ac, µ! +C 5 I �2 F w'}5•w ' i ux' ° r '. F '. t '; "L/yi• S / t r kV L: r�'�1 t /'� �'�1 � S�/ �!^S X t y( `3 '. iX°t9 :. q"`d1 �, P"/ r-yam{., a r•.�r. J /77 i Ail I Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY F.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3131 May 14, 2001 Jack White, City of Anaheim, City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE (714) 766-5123 Lois Jeffrey, City of Tustin, City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE (714) 832-0825 Joseph Fletcher, City of Santa Ana, City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE (714) 647-6515 David DeBerry, City of Orange, City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE (714) 538-7157 Jerry Scheer, City of Costa Mesa, City Attorney VIA FACSIMILE (714) 764-6330 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO JWA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Dear Counsel: I have received responses from each of you confirming attendance (by you or a representative) at a lunch meeting to hear a presentation on the proposed amendment of the John Wayne Airport Settlement (agreement). The presentation will summarize the key provisions of the agreement, the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment and identify some of the legal issues. The following is the date, time and location of the lunch meeting: Date May 16th - Wednesday Time 12:00 p.m. Place Mr. Stox Restaurant/ Napa Room 1106 East Katella Avenue Anaheim (714) 634-2994 I hope the information provided at the meeting will be helpful and we intend to schedule future meetings to update you on the status of the process that we hope will lead to an extension of the agreement. Please call me if you have questions. Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RHB:da cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager Patrick Alford, Planning Department F:Xusers\catlsharedtda\ProjectslJWAVetter\CityAttys0516mtg.doc 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney TO: File FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Extension EIR DATE: May 9, 2001��,.�°"�% The following is a summary of some of the tasks that need to be completed within the next 14 days, suggested terms/conditions and tentative delegation of responsibility. MOU/COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT We are assuming the MOU relative to alternatives (see BOS motion — attached) will serve as the cooperative agreement pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This MOU is to go to the BOS and the City Council on 5/22/01 without fail. To take full advantage of the momentum, the benefits of BOS approval (takes the heat off of staff) and the quick turn around, the MOU should/could include the following: (a) Initial Study — we obviously need to prepare at least a draft checklist initial study before we issue a Notice of Preparation (NOP). This needs to be done immediately (by Shute) with prompt transmittal to Mike and Allen (probably Oviedo too) for input. (b) Restatement of the project description — hopefully in the context of a draft NOP —for BOS and Council approval. We have prepared a draft NOP that can serve as the basis for discussion with Mike and Allen this week. However, we need to know if we need to amend the County's General Plan and/or JWA Master Plan as part of the Project and we need to discuss — but no necessarily decide — on a strategy if the Irvine/ETRPA initiative seeks to amend the County's General Plan relative to JWA. Patrick needs to conduct a thorough review of the County's planning documents and the JWA Master Plan. (c) Identification of Alternatives — We should be extremely flexible in defining alternatives since there is no way of knowing what it will take to obtain Smith's vote down the line. Also, flexible and broad alternatives will help us convince the FAA and air carriers that we do not have our feet in concrete on the "deal points." (d) Document Preparation — the MOU should establish the responsibility for document preparation and the City Council assumes that we will be paying and primarily responsible - at least for initial drafts. (e) Consultants — the County has a rather cumbersome consultant retention process that I would like to avoid. The MOU should specify that the City will select the consultants — from a list submitted to and approved by the Airport Director — and contract with the consultants with the contract to require the consultant to treat the County designee as a client. I am hopeful we can use Phyllis Fox for air quality, Austin Faust for traffic, Rick Ware for biology (he may we able to prepare a very helpful report on impacts of air carrier operations on the Back Bay) and Vince for noise. Would like input on land use, cumulative impacts etc. (f) Process/Internal — we will need to give Mike, Allen and Richard something akin to full editorial input into all components of the EIR. Should insert requirement for prompt turnaround given Mike's penchant for delay and specify a list of alternative designees since we will be dealing with vacations and other commitments. (g) Process/Interest Groups —this is going to be a difficult section to write and a difficult process to manage. The MOU should identify Mike and Allen as the lead dogs for purposes of FAA, ATA, individual air carriers, air cargo carriers and general aviation — with the City present at all meetings. We take the lead role relative to the corridor cities with the County present as well. We must give some thought to allowing comments on an ongoing basis rather than just at the NOP and NOC phases. STATEMENT BY CHAIRPERSON GLOVER I AM THE CHAIR OF THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION COMMITTEE AND I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT ON THE ACTION TAKEN TODAY BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON OUR REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I AM VERY PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE BOARD SELECTED A PROPOSED PROJECT AND DIRECTED THE CEO TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO DEVELOP A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD ON MAY 22. THIS MOU WOULD DEFINE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND THE ROLES THE CITY AND COUNTY WOULD PLAY IN THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED EXTENSION. THE BOARD'S DECISION IS THE FIRST STEP IN A LENGTHY AND COMPLEX PROCESS THAT WILL INVOLVE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITIES IMPACTED BY JWA OPERATIONS, THE FAA, AND THE AIR CARRIERS. ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL, I WANT TO THANK CHAIR CYNTHIA COAD, SUPERVISOR CHUCK SMITH, SUPERVISOR JIM SILVA, JWA DIRECTOR ALLEN MURPHY AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MIKE GATZKE FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN TAKING THIS FIRST STEP TOWARDS AN EXTENSION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 1 w TO DATE M Accounts Payable P p Harbor Resources DAdministrative Services M Human Resources M Building p Mayor M CityAttomey 0 M.I.S. City Clerk O Payroll M City Manager arming M City Manager, Assistant p Police O City Manager, Deputy = Public Works/Engineering p Community Services p Public Works/Utilities 0 Fire M Revenue p General Services, FROM DEPT. CTION [I9H REVIEW ,,�., _.,,,,'�-nrOREQUESTED RMATION ❑ COMMENT ❑ FILE ❑ SIGN ❑ RETURN h " REMAA/RKS APR-25-01 10:10 Fgm:HE�17 MCGUIRE +949-798-0510 T-128 P.01/02 Job-090 'MIA M. COCHRAN DCAN DONN-RANKIN SANORA A. GALLB WILLIAM E.IiALLE ANDREW K. IIARTZCI.L HuaN HEWITT JOHN 13. 1IUDSON HEWITT & MCGumr,� LLP ATTUI4NEYS AT LAW 19900 MAcARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949) 798.0500 - (949) 798.0511 (FAX) SMAII: c0unee1Qhewiteme9uiM-wM wRl'1'CR1S DIRECr DIAL; (949) 799.0734 UMA1L: donei0twinmogilire.mm April 25, 2001 r ' THIS IS PAGE 1 OF v ' PAGES. TO: Homer Bludau Bob Burnham Patrick Alford FROM: Dennis D. O'Neil SPECIAL NOTES: 0& STEVF.N 0. IMHOOF MARK R. MCGUIRL DFNNIS D. O'NPIL JAY r. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE W ILLIAM I.. TWOMLY JOIIN P. YPAOL'It FAX NO: (949) 644-3020 FAX NO: (949) 644-3139 FAX NO: (949) 644-3250 Can you have Patrick or Burnham locate the information requested by Harry Rinker and got it to him. Thanks, Dennis. IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (949) 798-0500. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FORTHE REVIEW AND USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE ISNOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBYNOTIFIED THAT ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OR COPYING OF THIS UNICATION is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASSMME ATELYNO'fIFYUSBY HE TELEPHONE. THANK YOU. APR-25-2001 10156 +949 798 0510 96i P.01 APR-25-01 10:10 Fxom:01TT MCGUIRE APr•24.2001 0605PA From-RINKER COMPANY +949-790-0510 I7146769627 T-129 P 02/02 Job-090 T-021 P.001/002 t-fbl IUNKEtt COMPANY TO: Mr. Bruce Nestande DATE: April 24, 2001 RE: EL TORO AIRPORT MEMORANDUM • t t t t t t �F t' t t t t Y t t i f t' t M t 4' + t t t t �► t t +Y �F t +N t M' M t b 4 •Y t •M t t M t t In reading the Press Releases of the south county over the post throe weeps, I believe they have finally stepped into a major strategic blunder provided; (a) that they do not wise -up and change their strategy and, (b) that we properly exploit their position in our messages annddaa s to the swing votes in Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Westminster, Huntington ch- cte. p I am referring to the south county's official poeiti �d eATIY scheduleen to a substantial increaremove the seMin the at 1W, extend the runways south over Highway number of flights. As I recall from the article, a recommendation of 24-hour flights was only lost by 1 vote unfortunately. Now that the south county concurs that substantial additional flights are essential for the future travel health of The county, the only question to be answered is from what field thr flights are made. And, that question can be demonstratively answered by placing rpry of El Toro's 17,0o0-acre clear zone over Iohn Wayne which will show the first houses out in the ocean. It has long been MY view that if that simple graph were thoroughly distributed to the swing voters in the north and west county, that we could win any of the initiatives or referendums that the south county will be putting on the ballot next year. I understand the above referred overlay was presented to an audience at one time by the City .of Newport Beach but I have not seen it myself and would appreciate it if Dennis O'Neil could get me a copy and will carbon him with this letter. S /P Cc. Dennis O'Neil, Esq., vfafax (VeIV) V%`l' V& Q 0� D� NAIlNGAWRESS:PO.60x72S0 OO_NMPORMAC ,MFORNA9265,14250 ewv. ro l a C70A077 APR-25-2001 10:56 +949 798 6510� 96% P.02 SANTA ANA t 'RESIDENTIAL AREAS»....e I,OSTA MESA , �•� E—T— ICA SIZE 4� e N EL TAR ,rr ;r, .�rr�; y. RESIDENTIAL AREAS i ti .olaml YJ Y;' P J_ VINE <<i � ;aY.' Caapru NEWPf, T :RESIDENTIAL BELCH " AREAS t 4t , RESIDENTIAL J AREAS„ SIZE OF MCAS < EL TORO "NO HOME NOISE BUFFER ZONE" S I% �il►�,i �'� `� Jfll�I� �i _ SANTA ANA w , V Ap \ 4 ►!SIZE .. CAS I.OSTA MESA r �— tEL TO 3 r l 1 a . s IRVINE ~i RESIDENTIAL <irmptu r,fb AREAS NEWPr' T RESIDENTIAL z 8El.CH '' AREAS •—" r F RESIDENTIAL AREAS ��r�sron r► ✓O SIZE OF MCAS EL TORO "NO HOME ~ "^ NOISE BUFFER .=hf ZONE" ' AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY-12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 238, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, California, 92702-4048, Phone: (714) 834-5312 Fax:(714) 814.6132 MAY 121% Pat Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659 Dear Ms. Temple: During your recent telephone conversation with Ms. Lisa Ci-bellis, you discussed past efforts made by your city and the Airport Land Use Commission in determining whether your City's General Plan is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The conclusion reached was that it would be best to start from the beginning in our review of your City's General Plan. Enclosed is a questionnaire which identifies specific policies now contained in the AELUP. The questionnaire will "provide a "road map" which will allow you and your staff to address key policies in the AELUP as they relate to your planning documents. Should you have any questions or desire further information, please feel free to call me or contact Lisa directly at 834-2089. In addition, please keep me informed on the progress of the City'-s Noise Element Amendment. Very truly yours, *eoe itton Executive Officer. LC:tk 2050709592993 C50031 Li Cli�ly.-- rILANNING DEPARTMEN, rITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAY 151992 718,9110,1111211121314-1 6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY-12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 238, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Phone: (714) 834-5312 Notice of Public Meeting Fax: (714) 834-6132 Thursday, May 21, 1992 PLACE: Orange County Hall of Administration PLANNING DEPARTMEN, TIME: 7:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP- SUBJECT: Regular Meeting AM MAY 2 11992 P1l AGENDA 7181911011111211121314151P ROLL CALL: !� APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT April 231.1992 S. Beverburg, Brady, Bresnahan, Carlson, Pontious, Shuter, Wahlstrom, Wall OLD BUSINESS: 1. Review of Inconsistent Agencies: Staff update on status of review. NEW BUSINESS: 2. City of Mission Viejo, General Plan Amendment: Review of the City's Growth Management Element. 3. Update on SB 1591: Discussion of Commission's response to proposed legislation. 4. Elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman: Annual election for Chairman and Vice Chairman. ONGOING BUSINESS: 5. Iroceedings with Consistent Agencies: Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Westminster, County of Orange. 6. Proceedings with Inconsistent Agencies: Buena Park, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin (under review). 7. Item of Interest to the Public: Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. NEXT REGULAR MEETING: June 18, 1992 LC:tk/2021113415980�Sa C50031 /r, (�7M (� A ` AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY-12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm. 238, Santa Ana, California 92702.4048 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 92702.4048 �I Phone: (714) 834.5312 Fax: (714) 834-6132 AGENDA ITEM 1 DATE: May 21, 1992 TO: All Commissioners/Alternates FROM: George Britton, Executive Officer SUBJECT: Inconsistent Agency Update BACKGROUND At the March 19, 1992 meeting the ALUC instructed staff to review the status of the agencies whose policies were found to be inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in the AELUP. These cities include Buena Park, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, -Seal Beach, Stanton and Tustin. Each city expressed a strong desire to achieve consistency with the AELUP. Below is a table that gives the estimated dates for completion. City Contact Est. Completion Date Buena Park Ken' Griffith Late 92 or early 1993 Newport Beach Pat Temple Late 92 Santa Ana Larry Yenglin Late 92 through 1993 Seal Beach Lee Whittenberg Late 93 through 1994 Stanton Mark Lloyd Late 92 Tustin Dana Ogden Late 92 All of the Cities are in the process of amending their General Plan Elements and three of the cities are processing complete comprehensive amendments to their plans. For those three cities (Buena Park, Santa Ana and Seal Beach), the date of completion is spread out over a wider range of time. ALUC Staff has offered their assistance in reviewing these documents in order to facilitate compliance with the AELUP. , 1 RECOMMENDATION: Discussion of the item by the Commission. A� gap� George Britton Executive Officer AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY— 12 Civic Center Plaza, Rm.238, Santa Ana, California 927024W Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, California 9W-4048 �b IIR11r*Pi312 NN�N E�JPOEI AELUP Consistency Review Workshe4jvv of N g 19°2 6 The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) contains specific guri;o8 s elated to three sources of incompatibility: noise, safety and building height As a means of focusing attention on your individual jurisdiction's land use documents and their relationship to the AELUP, please complete the following information. Nota: "Location" refers to the page or section number'in your document where the information can be found. NOISE The AELUP standards for residential uses are as follows: , HIGH NOISE IMPACT (65 CNEL AND ABOVE): Noise impact in this zone is sufficient to warrant restrictions on residential uses and require sound attenuation measures on other uses. All residential units are unacceptable in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting -the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 CMM. Furthermore, all residential units are to be sufficiently indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living activities. Patios and similar outdoor living areas, therefore, are normally unacceptable. (Page 19, emphasis added) NOISE IMPACT 7.ONE "2"9 MODERATE NOISE I118ACT (60 CNEL OR GEEATER, LESS TERN 65 CNEL): Noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation as required by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Administrative Code. Single noise events in this area create serious disturbances to many inhabitants. Even though the Commission would not find residential units incompatible in this area, the Commission strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The interior sound attenuation Residential use sound attenuation requirements shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB(A). (Page 20) Are there policies in your General Plan's Noise Element vhich: Prohibit all/new residential uses in 65+CNEL areas? Y N Location: Require an interior standard of 45 CNEL? Y N Location: Commentst How are these policies implemented? Zoning Code Section Special Ordinance Standard Condition of Approve (pleas* attach sample) AELUP noise standards for non-residential uses are as follows: Institutional uses such as"schodli — hbspitdli, libraries and other noise sensitive uses are " normally unacceptable in this zone [65 CNEL and above]. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses are acceptable in this zone providing that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities to be conducted. Said structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined input of all present and projected exterior noise to meet the following criterias Typical Use Level Lest) (12) Private office, church sanctuary, board room, conference room, etc. 45 General office, reception, clerical ate. 90 Dank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing poolp etc. (Page 19, emphasis added.) Sb Are there policies in your General Plan's Noise Elements whicht Exclude noise sensitive land uses for 65+cp&L anat T N Locations Require interior standards as noted above? T N Locations /V0 Require other interior standards? T N Locations N0 (Please attach copy Comments: Now are these policies implemented? Y N Sm as residential. 1 If different, than please identify: Zoning Code Section Other Ordinance Standard condition of Approval (p ease attach sample) SAFETY The most significant safety areas are the APZ 1 and APZ 2 zones. If your jurisdiction does not extend into this area, please skip to the Height section. AELUP Standards for the APZ's are as follows: ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE "I", CONSIDERABLE CRASH HAZARDt The potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents is sufficient to require density and intensity of use restrictions in this zone. In accordance with the General Policy, the Commission would find unacceptable any land use where lot coverage exceeded fifty (50) percent or where more than one hundred (100) persons were placed for long periods in a structure (i.e., a free-standing building). All forms of residential uses are unacceptable in this zone, as are places of indoor or outdoor assembly (i.e., churches, schools, conference centers, restaurants etc.). Commercial, industrial, and airport -related uses are acceptable in this zone providing they adhere to the density and intensity of use restrictions. and, ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE "II", LIMITED CEASE HAZARD: The potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents is sufficient to require density and intensity of use restrictions in this zone. In accordance with the General Policy, the Commission would find unacceptable any land use where lot coverage exceeded seventy-five (75) percent or where more than two hundred (200) persons were placed for long periods in an open assembly area or in a structure (i.e., a free-standing building). Most forms of open space, industrial, commercial, and airport -related uses are acceptable, whereas residential and public facilities (school, churches, etc.) are not acceptable. (Pages 20-21, emphasis added) The following qualifications apply to both APZ's: ...oecause or the proximity to aeronautical operations, uses in this area must not emit excessive glare or light, nor produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger, aeronautical operations. t In applying the APZ standards, the Commission considers a free-standing building m one (1) structure despite the existence of firs walls that may separate tenants or users. Furthermore, the Commission considers that if a structure crosses over boundary lines of APZ's I or II or over a boundary between a non -crash hazard area and an APZ, that the entire building shall be considered to be in the most restrictive An area Are there policies in your General Plan vhich, within APZ Zones, Exclude concentrations greater than specified above? 7 N- Locations- %lb Exclude residential uses and public facilities? 7 N Locations ;(b Address issues of glare, smoke, etc? T N Location: f.(() How are these policies implemented? APZ Overlay District 7 N Locations Other Zoning Code Restriction 2 N Locations Other ordinance Z N Locations MO. MG HEK r. r Building heights - which for practical purposes involve highrise buildings - are a more complex topic because they are related to various imaginary surfaces at each airport. Does your agency have a map or other graphic which depicts these surfaces for the airport(s) which impacts you? t) N Location: 7btnmt�n /Cris Cf�fri�� ?p G� The AELUP standards are as follows: Any object, which by reason of its height or location would interfere with the established, or planned, airport flight procedures, patterns, or navigational system, is unacceptable to the Commission. Similarly, ^4- any proposal which would cause a diminution in the utility of an airport is unacceptable to the Commission. The standards, criteria, and procedures promulgated by the FAA for the thorough evaluation of development projects are designed to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The application of these principles by the Commission will ensure the stability of local air transportation as well as promote land uses compatible with the airport environs. Hovever, any object which rises above the surrounding development, or is located in close proximity to any of the various flight paths, must be clearly visible during hours of twin light or darkness and must not threaten, endanger, or interfere with aeronautical operations. Such objects, even if within the above height restrictions, are not acceptable to the Commission unless they are clearly marked or lighted according to FAA standards. In reviewing projects, the Commission will find any structure, either within or outside of the planning areas, incosistent with their ABLUP if It: 1. Is determined to be a "hazard" by the FAA; 2. Would raise the ceiling or visibility minimums at an airport for an existing or planned instrument procedure (i.e., a procedure consistent with the FAA -approved airport layout plan or a proposed procedure formally on file with the FAA); 3. Would result in a loss in airport utility, such as causing the usable length of the runway to be reduced; 4. Would conflict with the yFR air space used for the airport traffic pattern or enroute navigation to and from the airport. Are there policies in your General Plan which reference FAA studies and clearances? 7 N Location: Are there procedures to ensure that all highrise buildings require a discretionary permit to include review by the ALUC? _ ® N Location: zQtnXv, u rx)d r. 5?c -kyv\ y0, D�, . oqo 7 GB:eo/tk(CON) 9062111112258 i —6— CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 15, 1992 TO: John Douglas FROM: Bob Kavert SUBJECT: Development of a work program to create consistency between the City's planning documents and the guidelines set forth in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. I• • • 1�1� The State of California requires the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County to formulate a comprehensive land use plan for the areas surrounding all public airports within its jurisdiction. The ALUC has adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), and requested that the City of Newport Beach review its General Plan to determine if its policies are consistent with the guidelines set forth in the AELUP. In 1985 the City and the County entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement which imposes limits through the year 2005. A summary of the Airport Agreement is attached for information. Policy #K of The Land Use Element of the General Plan states; "The land use designations and building intensity standards in this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the Airport Settlement Agreement and the provisions of that Agreement have become an integral part of the land use and planning process of the City of Newport Beach..." The ALUC mailed the City anAELUP Consistency Review Worksheet as a means of focusing attention on the areas of our General Plan where consistency is required. The worksheet is divided into three sections: Noise, Safety and Building Height. I have reviewed each section as they relate to our planning documents, identified inconsistencies, and recommended revisions. NOISE The AELUP has established Noise Impact Zones for John Wayne Airport. The Noise impact zones correspond to the CNEL contours depicted in EIR 508, prepared jointly for the Airport Master Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program. (These contours were also the implementation lines for two noise compatibility programs: Purchase Assurance and Acoustical Insulation). There are restrictions on land uses and development within the noise impact zones. NOISE ELEMENT The Noise Element of the General Plan is outdated (adopted August 1974) and in the process of being revised. The City policies cited in the Noise Element (Section 2 - Aircraft Noise) regarding the airport are also outdated and have little relevance. In order to create consistency with the AELUP, it is recommended that the Noise Element revision include the following: 1. A map indicating current 60 and 65 CNEL contour lines delineating "Noise Impact Zones". 2. Restrictions and standards for residential, institutional, commercial, industrial and recreational uses within each zone. 3. Interior sound attenuation standards. SAFETY The AELUP has established Accident Potential Zones and Clear Zones where the potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents is high. Density and intensity of use restrictions have been established. The Clear Zone for John Wayne Airport, as delineated in the AELUP, extends into the City. The ALUC has not adopted Accident Potential Zones for John Wayne airport because none could be justified with the available data. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT The Public Safety Element of the General Plan is outdated (adopted February, 1975). There are no policies in the Safety Element addressing the airport or the potential for hazard. In order to create consistency with the AELUP, it is recommended that the Public Safety Element include the following: 1. Policies for existing development in the Clear Zone. 2. The potential for loss of life and property due to aircraft accidents. 2 4 3. Density and intensity use restrictions in the accident potential zones. 4. Restrictions on uses which may emit glare or •light, or produce or cause steam, smoke, dust or electronic interference so as to interfere with, or endanger aeronautical operations. BUILDING HEIGHT The AELUP does not permit structures of excessive height in areas which would affect adversely the continued operation of the airport. The AELUP has adopted Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) as a guideline to describe the ultimate height of structures under the "imaginary surfaces" as defined in FAR Part 77. The AELUP Consistency Review Worksheet focuses attention on three areas: A. A map or other graphic which depicts building heights for the airport. B. Policies in the General Plan which reference FAA studies and clearances. C. City procedures to ensure that all highrise buildings require a discretionary permit to include review by the ALUC. The City's Zoning Code contains a Height Limitation Zone Map (Chapter 20.02, p. 17a). This appears to be consistent with the AELUP, and comply with area "A" from above. Section 20.02.090 of the Zoning Code, Airport Height Limits, states; "Any project which requires a notice of construction or alteration by the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations Part 77 shall require FAA compliance, and the applicant shall submit a copy of the FAA application to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses... " This section of the Zoning Code appears to be consistent with the AELUP, and comply with area "B" from above. However, it does not clearly specify City procedures to ensure that all highrise buildings receive discretionary review by the ALUC. In order to create consistency with the AELUP, it is recommended that the Zoning Code be amended to clearly specify City procedures to ensure that all highrise buildings in the airport planning area receive discretionary review by the ALUC. attachment 3 r SUMMARY OF AIRPORT AGREEMENT Form of Agreement Term Stipulated judgment in Federal Court signed by County, City AWG, SPON, FAA, and various airlines Phase I - from ?ebruary 26, 1985 to approximately March 31, 1990. Phase II - from approximately April 1, 1990 to December 31, 2005. Passenger Limits (MAP Cap) Phase I - 4.75 Million Annual Passengers Phase II - 8.4 Million Annual Passengers Terminal Size Limitations No more than 271,000 square feet of public or rentable interior space of which no more than 37,000 square feet to be devoted to --departure lounges. . Total not to exceed 337,900 square feet. 8,400 auto parking spaces on four levels (does not include North Clear Zone Parking Area). Flight Limits Maximum Average Daily Departures (ADD) "Bu "An (over 100 dB, (less than 100 dB, e.g. B737-200) e.g. MD-80) Phase I 0 39 Phase II 0 39 Additional Airport Search uAA" (less than 89.5 dB, e.g. B737-300) 16 34 County rescinds official opposition to a new airport. Exempt (less than 86 dB, e.g. BAE-146) Up to MAP Cap Up to MAP Cap County to promote FAA funding of legitimate groups seeking to develop an additional airport. Miscellaneous Curfew to remain. General Aviation (Business Jet) Noise Ordinance to be i enforced. 4� Y PLACE: J TIME: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 300 N. Flower St. iim.356. Santa Ana.Ca 92702-4048 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 4048. Santa Ana. Ca 92702-4048 Notice of Public Meeting Thursday, January 20, 1994 Orange County Hall of Administration 7:00 p.m. SUBJECT: Regular Meeting A aJ ROLL CALL: a Y APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE October 21, 1993 NEW BUSINESS AGENDA Phone: (714) 834-5312 Fax: (714) 834-6132 REC91YED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'TV OF NEWPORT BEACH JAN.2 0 1994 8�9�IDIlla21112131415iM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Beverburg, Brady, Brown, Carlson, Elder, Pontious, Wall 1. Draft AICUZ for AFRC Los Alamitos:. Discussion by Commission concerning comments regarding the Draft AICUZ. 2, upcoming AELUP Amendment: Staff has prepared a list of topics for the Commission to discuss regarding the upcoming AELUP Amendment. ONGOING BUSINESS• M ress 3. Proceedings with -Consistent Agencies: Anaheim, C Costa esa, yp , Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Stanton, Westminster, County of Orange. 4. Proceedings with Inconsistent Agencies: Buena Park (under review), Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin (under review). S. Item of Interest to the Public: Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission.provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. NEXT REGULAR MEETING: February 24, 1994 LC:tk/2021113415980 :j1f li Al t� Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; M E M To: From: 949 650 1181; O R A Leslie Rogers, Regional Administrator, FTA; Arthur Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Feb-13-01 12:18PM; Page 2 N D U M Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ("EQAC") City of Newport Beach Subject: U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration's ("FTA") and Orange County Transportation Authority's ("OCTA") Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Environmental Impact Report ("SDEIS/RDEIR") for the Orange County CenterLine Project (the "Project") Date: February 13, 2001 Cc: Mayor Gary Adams and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Environmental Impact Report ("SDEIS/RDEIR" or the "Document") for the Project prepared by FTA and OCTA; the Project includes design, construction and operation of a light rail line through the heart of Orange County. Collectively, we refer to FTA and OCTA as the "Agencies." These comments incorporate any and all comments received by the Agencies in connection with the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the Agencies reconsider the SDEIS/RDEIR, revise the document to address the Project's impacts in connection with the John Wayne Airport and flight schedules, natural resources in and around the City and other issues discussed below, and recirculate the document for public comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to:describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's ability to review the SDEIS/RDEIR, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to recognize the significant impacts to the John Wayne Airport and to the City of arty truncated, alignment which does not carry passengers south to the:Irvide Spectrum and the Irvine Transportation Center. serlt By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:19PM; Page 3 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Lealry, OCTA Page 2 February 13,2001 (3) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to discuss, identify, analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts of increased passenger loads to the John Wayne Airport; (4) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to recognize, analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts on the jewel of Newport Beach —San Diego Creek and the Back Bay. (5) The SDEIS/RDEIR contain other failings discussed below; the Agencies should address these and other issues. iI. Introduction: EIR/EIS and Leeal'Standards, which: An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decisionmakers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc v 32nd District Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929. In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[tlhe degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. Some projects such as general plan adoption deal with general issues; but CEQA also applies to small projects which require merely a conditional use permit. The QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:20PM; Page 4 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 3 February 13, 2001 analysis in an FIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed p oject and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. I Finally, in connection areas near �irports, a recent amendment to the CEQA Guidelines requires: "When a lead agency prepares an' EIR for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use pan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the agency shad utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans j Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation of the EIR relative to;potential airport -related safety hazards and noise problems." CEQA Guidelines section 15154(a). The federal standards established for evaluating an EIS may be more relaxed than the California standards for evaluating an EI�. Nonetheless, an EIS should be a self contained document which informs the decisionmakers and the public "without the need for undue cross- reference." Baltimore Gas and Electric o v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1983) 462 U.S. 87, 99-101, n. 12 and 13. Finally, CEQA Guidelines sectio15160 discusses various types of EIRs. The variations set forth in section 15160 are not exhaustive: "Lead agencies may use other variations consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs ofjother circumstances." Id. However, all EIRs must fulfill the content requirements of Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines. Id The types of EIRs in Article 11 include a "Subsequent EIR," `Supplement to an EIR," and an "Addendums to an F.IR." Article 11 does not address a "Revised EIR." Further, a review of the CEQA case law reveals no such use. I1. Procedural Issues• The "Revised EIR" and Document Availability. The Executive Summary attempt to explain the Project History and the Decision Making Process. The Summary attempts to exp the need for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and the Revised Environment il Impact Report. However, this section fails to explain why the EIS is supplemental and the EIR is revised. Indeed, without explanation, this difference will lead to confusion and obscure the purpose and the standards applicable to an evaluation of the Document. The Document should clearly explain the process and the rationale for the development of this new category of a Revised F,IR. l Sent By: Hawkins Law offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:20PM; Page 5 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Pago 4 February 13, 2001 Further, the Agencies have attempt6d to make the Document and the earlier DEIS/DEIR for the Project generally available to the public. However, this attempt has met with difficulties. First and foremost, the Document is available on CD-ROM and on the OCTA website. Although the Document is available in this electrcriivl medium, the formatting of the Document precludes the ability to copy portions of the Docurr}ent for comment. Second, the Document's current foTtnat is difficult to read in the electronic medium: the paper copies are superior. Unfortunately; the paper copies are not generally available. We suggest that in the future the Agencies make other such documents fully electronic and allow for ease of use. III. Section 1- Statement of Purpose and Need. �j As indicated above, this Section purports to discuss the background of the Project and the need for the Document. However, this Sle4tion fails to discuss and explain in a clear fashion the need for a Revised E1R, instead of some' dendum or other document. One of the reasons for the SDE1S/RDEIR is the discussion of theinew Alternatives. As discussed immediately below, the Alternatives discussion is inadequatei e Agencies should continue to revise and improve the Document so that the Alternatives discusPe fulfills its promise. Further, and more importantly, t e;scope of the Document is truncated: Section 1.2 purports to discuss the regional setting of the Project. However, this section fails to consider the Project's location in relation to the City of Newport Beach and the Project's impacts on the City including impacts on the John Wayne Airport, San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay. Correlatively, section 1.2 erroneously st4t4s that the Project Corridor consists of mixed uses of residential and commercial uses. Howes er, this statement ignores the important airport use in the vicinity of the City. The Agencies should revise, supplement or otherwise correct the, Document to discuss specifically the Project's impajcfs on the City, the Airport and the City's resources including San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay. Section 1.5.5 addresses future en r.1 amental processes. This section states that projects such as the Project are iterative with con liued release of environmental documents for changes in the Project. However, as discussed below, the Agencies must carefully proceed in this iterative process. Each document must contain specifics details rather than general promises. As discussed below, the Document fails to 0#111in specifics as to the Project Alternatives and this failing undercuts the Document. The Agencies cannot rely on the iterative process to delay these details. i Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:21PM; Page 6 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 5 j February 13, 2001 ; IV. Section 2 The Project Description Project Alternatives and the Need for Specificity. :1 As indicated above, the SDEIS/RP$IR sets forth additional alternatives including a discussion of the three original alignmen,,,,, a new discussion of three new alignments as well as a decision on the Locally Preferred Alternative ("LPA') and a Minimum Operable Segment ("MOS"). At the outset, we note that all Alignment Alternatives for the LPA identify a line to the south including the Irvine Spectrum and ihb Irvine Transportation Center (collectively, the Irvine Spectrum and the Irvine Transportation Center are referred to as the "Southern Destinations") as optional. Further, the MOS Central stopts at the Irvine Business Complex and does not service southern areas in Orange County. Although the Document does not address the impacts of truncated alignment or MOS, any such a);ketnative would likely have significant environmental impacts on the City and the John Wayne ,Airport. If the preferred alternative omits the Southern Destinations, then the Project becomes oftq which merely transports passengers to and from the John Wayne Airport. As discussed below,;any such result would create significant environmental impacts on transportation„ noise, air quality and other resources for the City and for the John Wayne Airport. The Agenciel-should revise the Document to include discussion of such impacts and should recommend an 1,emative which includes the Southern Destinations as a mandatory, not optional, stop for the Project. However, Alternatives discussiont ikt the SDEIS/RDEIR fails for several reasons. First, the environmental analysis in the Docrit does not contain enough information and specifies to compare the potential impacts of the three j ew alignments and the three original alignments as well as the impacts of the various MOS Alernatives. This problem is significant: if Altematives—both the alignments and the MOS—lack specifics, neither the public nor the decisionmakers can determine the extentof the impacts and the nature and extent of the proposed mitigation. Further, not only is the impacts discussion at a general level but the proposed mitigation floats at a similar abstract level. CF.QA does not require "floating mitigation" but real mitigation. However, because of the impacts discussion remains at a general level, the proposed mitigation suffers. Indeed, based upon t»$ general discussion of impacts and mitigation, neither the public nor the decisionmakers can cc nfirm with any degree of certainty that significant adverse impacts would be mitigated to bol w a level of significance. CEQA requires more: either the proposed mitigation must really reduce the identified significant impacts to less than significant impacts or the Agencies mush rilake findings to support a statement of overriding considerations. ! l However, the Document fails to i4ch this level: the lack of specifics as to impacts and mitigation make it impossible to determipi which alignment Alternative and which MOS Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. The Agencies must address this Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:21PM; Page 7 li Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 6 February 13, 2001 issue: in view of the stated purposed of the Document, it must discuss impacts and mitigation not on a gencral level but on a specific level So that the public can meaningfully comment and the decisionmakers can accurately decide on jhe superior a ternatives. t I. We recommend that the description of the alternatives include the following information: (1) The exact location of each of the statl* for each Alternative Alignment; (2) For each station, the Document should identify the proposed access and demand for both pedestrians and vehicles; (3) For each station, the Document should identify the nature and extent of the facilities including loading facilities and;parking for passenger vehicles (For example, stations 27 through 30 may set,ve the residents of Newport Beach, but it is unclear whether parking would be prolbided at these stations.) A (4) For each Alternative, the Document should identify and discussion the locations of all electrical substations and other facilities needed to serve the proposed routes. This lack of specifics also causes p#oblems for th, measures. The Document does not identiq specific mitil Agencies to a specific mitigation program.; This failing u neither the public nor,decisionmakers can assess with cer impacts of the Project or what mitigation measures are nc what agcncy implements and enforces the mitigation me, ensure that the promised mitigation is implemented. Wit Document does not provide the City and t e public at lar identified all adverse impacts and provided the necessary an LPA and MOS without further definitio i of the Projer Document is insufficient to support any di4cretionary act V. Document's discussion of mitigation ition measures and does not commit the dercuts the viability of the Document: dnty thatpotentially significant adverse essary. Further, the Document fails to state ures and what agency has oversight to nut more specific information, the with assurance that the Document has nitigation therefor. If the Agencies select , its impacts and its mitigation, the n to proceed with the project. Section 3.0 of the Document attempts to address Transportation Impacts: impacts on transit service and ridership; roadway network impacts and parking impacts. However, this section fails to address transportation impacts to an imporEattt transportation feature adjacent to the City: John Wayne Airport The Project will transport many gers to and from the Airport and this increase will affect the Airport and its flight scheduling. i Yet the Docufrlent contains no discussion at all of this impact or any proposed mitigation. The Agencies must of ain revise the Document to include a detailed discussion of this transportation and impact, and provide specific mitigation for any such Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Leslie Rogers, FTA } Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 7 j February 13, 2001 impact. Indeed, any impact to the Airport dill affect the di include mitigation for the City. I; j Feb-13-01 12:22PM; Hence, any airport mitigation must Page 8/25 Further, this section fails to explain6nd analyze sp ific impacts and mitigation. Indeed, the Document candidly concedes: F t "Additional environmental analvsi and an MOS are selected (sic) r' environmental analysis will focus the MOS that will be defined d1�it substations and park -and -ride lots. SDEIS/RDEiR, page . Although requirements. The Document dips in disclosure obligations and its informa CEQA does not sanction the promise either include specifics or tread at a gi For instance, the Document atu However, the Document provides only "OCTA will work collaboral to refine the exact locations ( facility would function. The areas, the need to minimize I shared parking at existing or "OCTA will mitigate all extent physically, enviro parking impacts will be i SDEIS/RDEIR, pages 3-51 through 3-52. The Agencies' promise and detrrl to satisfy CEQA's requirements. `By ef conditions run counter to that policy of CE feasible stage in the planning process," I 51 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local ARencT F, principle that the environmental impactl sh planning;'); Mount Sutro Defense Corirm App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental process "where genuine flexibility remain: Hill be condu�ted after the selection of an LPA e CenterLineomiect. This additional more specifi4 project characteristics related to preliminary epgineering such as specific power Wise is encoµraging, it fails to satisfy CEQA of specifics Ond soars in generality: in order to satisfy its quirements, the Document must deal in specifics. specifics. 46 Agencies should revise the Document to to address and mitigate the Project's parking impacts. The Cent 2Line cites on a park and ride plan and ride filities and how each park and ride Ian will account for the character of the station c impacts, the opportunity to provide transit orie ted developments. reet and pff--street parking impacts to the nanciall} feasible. A mitigation plan for the development of the LPA." on the mitigation of the significant parking impacts fails ring environnental assessment to a future date, the lA which regdires environmental review at the earliest dstrom v. Cor6ty of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d mation Com.61975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the dd be assess government as early as possible in govement re V. ReRen dfUniversity of California (1978) 77 Cal. roblems should be considered at a point in the planning ). CEQA requlrres more than a promise of mitigation of Soot By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:23PM; Page 9/25 x• 1r it Leslie Rogers, FTA a :i Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 8 February 13, 2001 a` significant impacts: mitigation measures mW really mini#lize the impact. The only way to accomplish this and satisfy the disclosure and analytic requirements of the Document is to discuss in specifics the parking mitigation. t I. S vI. Section 41• Land Use Impacts and John Wavrre Airport. 1 In 1998, the Airport Land Use Corr rmssion for Or'iange County commented on the Project and requested that the EIR include: ".. , a detailed analysis of the potential impacts d* may be caused by, or to, the locating of rail line or station facilities within any Noise Impact Zones, Accident Potential or Clear Zones, Height Restriction Zones for John Wayne Airport .... "The Commission's Airport Envirclns Land Use P'an (AELUP) provides detailed information regarding these impactIzones and the mitigation measures that may be required for projects within them." �I k: t Neither the DEIS/DEIR nor the Documentes this issue. Indeed, for the City, the AELUP may present significant issues which affect the 16ject's impac3 on the City. To the extent that the Document fails to address the Commission s request, the Document must be revised: for the City, the Document must identify any such AELUPIYinpacts, preset mitigation and analyze such impacts and mitigation for the effects on the City. !; VII. As discussed immediately below, the Document contains a truncated descrii must remember in the San Joaquin Toll Rqa construction of &sound mitigation wall. T6 the San Joaquin Marsh. Although this resOO forms part of the Newport Bay ecosystem. li. ' regionally significant natural resource locate any potential impacts to the habitat in the It; Newport Bay. Following identification ofjti should propose mitigation. g . section 4.13 which addresses impacts on water resources, Fn of San Di'ga Creek and San Joaquin Marsh. OCTA i EIR, the n*e impacts to this sensitive area required the Document g°ontains no discussion of noise impacts on rce is not looted within the City of Newport Beach, it .he Upper N wport Bay Ecological Reserve is a 9 within Neport Beach. The Document should address n Joaquin m °ttrsh and any indirect impacts to Upper Ie impacts to these sensitive resources, the Document Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:23PM; Page 10/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 9 j! February 13, 2001 i VIII. Section 4 13• water Resources A=acrs: "But Newport Bay, Round I.I. The Document's vision of water re�ources in the B "All discussion of existing water resources ... x Costa Mesa and the City of Irvine setting section: jurisdictions that are potentially ;Yffected." This conclusion falls far short of the level afan impact a, In addition, Figure 4.13.1 attempts i6,delineate st However, the Project overlays render the *inity map irr appreciate the locations of San Diego Cree(, San Joaquir Two Alternatives directly affect Sah Diego Creel Alternative. Yet the Document fails to address impacts t "Portions of IAA, MOS-South B atld EA 2 trave: Diego Creek Channel. Although tibese altemativ creek, they do cross the channel at certain points. impact that would alter surface wat;,er drainage pe cW SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.13-5. This conclusp,�i� is not a alone would require some recognition and tnftigation. L: Further, given the lack of specifici' stations, the Document cannot address the groundwater. Nonetheless, without quanti concludes that the amount of impervious s groundwater recharge. Again, the Docum Agencies should address the impacts of th, Newport Bav, Round III. The Upper Newport Bay Ecology located within the City of Newport Bea( City. Although the Document attempts City, the Document fails to consider the impacts for any such upstream impacts. Joaquin Marsh and Newport Bay. of the Project is myopic: L be described under the City of since those are the only required for an EIR. waters in the vicinity of the Project. ble to read. Further, the maps fail to :h and the Upper Newport Bay. the Irvine Alternative and the Elevated this resource: the natural watercourse of the San nostly travel along the bank of the his is not considered a significant -- „ presumably the construction impacts )current has no time for such analysis. with respect' parking and access to the Project and its ipact of im i vious surfaces on drainage and ing the extent of such impervious surfaces, the Document faces related p the Project would not affect drainage or t has an expipatory, not dictatorial purpose. The inpervious surfaces and propose appropriate mitigation. Reserve is done of the tent of such particular,) regionally significant natural resource roject Aitematives are located within the s to natural resources upstream from the ,pacts and fails to trace the downstream Project has the potential to affect the San ILI' Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:24PM; Page 11/25 P i i Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 10 February 13, 2001 For instance, Figure 4.14-5C does not delineate the biotic resources adjacent to the Project Alternative alignment along Campus Drive:' Further, Figure 4.14.3 fails to identify biological resources in the San Joaquin Marsh along the south side of Michelson Drive. Page 4.14-4 recognizes the presence of a strip of coastal sage scrub (CSS) resources which the Irvine Ranch Water District has installed or'the berm along Carlson Avenue and Michelson Drive. Presumably, the District's installation of su6h habitat is mitigation for one of the District's project's impacts. However, the last paragraph states, that focused gnatcatcher surveys found no suitable habitat along any of the Project Altematives. This statement fails to recognize the IRWD mitigation: CSS is suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher. The Agencies should revise the Document to include a study for protected species including the grsateatcher for all locations along the Alternatives. Similarly, the Agencies should revise the Document to include a study for the least Bell's vireo in the riparian habitat to be affected. These studies should include habitat areas adjacent to Campus and Michelson. Section 14.14.3.1 addresses the Staff Recommended Alternative's impacts on natural resources. Among other improvements, the alternative includes the widening of Michelson Drive. This widening would affect IRWD's CSS restoration area. First, the Document should include a figure which identifies this IRWD's CSS restoration area; As the Agencies know, the state and federal resources agencies consider CSS to�,be a sensitive habitat. This resource should be listed on page 4.14-27. Further, page 4.14-30 statesjthat the Mlchdl on widening may require "removal of coastal sage scrub along the road edge ...';' The Document concludes: i "The removal of landscaped coastal sage scrub is not considered significant, since the native vegetation provides sparse cover with little to no understory and does not provide a functional corridor for whdlife movement" Page 4.14-30. Huh? If the CSS in the IRIYD restoration;area does not have high value for biological resources, this section should explain the rationale for the valuation. The above quotation fails to evaluate the value of the IRWD restoratiort area. The Agencies cannot merely draw a conclusion without analysis. The Agencies should reNiise the Document to discuss this impact and discuss what happens to the landscaped mitigation on the mitigated IRWD project impacts. Further, the Agencies should revise the second paragraph on page 4.14-30 to include discussion of the value of this CSS area for wildlife and whether it constitutes important CSS. is The Document states that construction impacts will affect natural resources including the riparian habitat along all Alternatives. The,;Agencies should revise the Document to include a mitigation measure to require surveys for sensitive plant species,be conducted prior to start of construction. Farther, page 4.14-37 discusses "other wildlife" which was not defined in the setting or impacts discussions. The Agencies should I• evise this section to include mitigation for such impacts. Sent By Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:24PM; Page 12/25 i Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 11 p February 13.2001 Finally, as indicated above, the Document fails to consider any of the Altematives' downstream impacts of the City's sensitive licesources including the Bay and San Diego Creek. The Agencies should revise the Document to include discussion and analysis of these downstream impacts as well as propose adequate mitigation. X. Section 4 15• Energy Impacts and the 2000-01 Enera Crisis. Section 4.15 states: 4 "California and Orange County have enjoyed sufficient energy supplies through much of the 1980s and 1990s. ... Electricity within Orange County is provided primarily by Southern California Edison (SSE) and in the extreme southern areas of the County by San Diego Gas and Electric (S.G &E). The 25, power plants within the County derive their power supply from a vdriety of sources including hydroelectric, oil/gas, and waste by-products." SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.15-1. The "analysis" is several years old and reflects the optimism which led to the current energy crisis. Further, the energy methodology which appears to equate oil and gas supplies with electric supplies may require revision in view of the energy crisis. Given that many Orange County customers have experienced the threat of significant fines for violation of their usage contracts, the Document must discuss the full impacts of the energy crisis on the Project and the Alternatives. The Document concludes that, givasi the savings on oil and gas supplies which the Project would affect, all of the Alternatives "would; result in slightly lower energy consumption than the No Build Alternative; therefore, no mitigation �br energy impacts is required." SDEIS/RDEIR page 4.15- 5. However, this projection fails to consider the energy crisis. The Agencies should revise the Document to include a full discussion of the impacts of each Alternative in connection with the energy Crisis, the limited supplies, and the unstable character of the energy providers. Xl. Section 416 Electromagnetic Fijlds ("EMF"), $iologfcal Impacts and John Wayne Airnort. The Document attempts to identify.potentially affected equipment and facilities as well as sensitive land uses. However, Pages 4.16-3 through -4 fails to identify and discuss impacts on important land uses and resources in the vicinity of the City. First, although the Document note*,that ENE may affect biological resources, it recognizes that such impacts are "uncertain." The D*ument incorporates guidelines which have safety factors m for such resources. However, the Docuent does not discuss or analyze the nature or extent of EMF Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 Feb-13-01 12:25PM; Page 13/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 12 February 13, 2001 impacts on biological resources or address n revise the Document to include a discussion Second, the Document identifies s potentially affected by the Project's EMF. in eomrection with the John Wayne Airpoi a discussion of such impacts and any prop XII. The City has important recreational have significant impacts. First, as noted alU and ignores any impacts downstream in the the Document to discuss these downstream related activities in the Newport Bay. Further, the Project and its Altema bicycle trail located adjacent to San Diego access to regional recreational opportunitic impacts but the table addresses only long t For example, on page 4.17-10, the p, section concedes that the Project may close. tl reconstruction of the crossing in order to re-c describe in a clear and understandable fash The Document states that the proximity im recreational resource. See SDEIS/RDEM discussion of this resource or its recreaticin discuss the Project's noise levels and thed: Without this information, the Documentka decisionmakers to assess whether the coW6 significant impacts to this recreational reso Further, to the extent that the PI coastline or the beaches, the Document load on the area transportation system The Document proposes certain ¢ea resources. Again, the Document soars to; di: specificity: who will implement the mitigati measures? Who will determine whetherthe implemented? 1 for any such impacts. The Agencies should impacts and if necessary mitigation. facilities and equipment locations which may be wer; the Document fails to consider the EMF impacts Agencies should revise to the Document to include es on which the Project and its Alternative may Iocument focuses solely on upstream impacts rt Bay and beyond. The Agencies should revise gn recreation including boating and other water r ;also affect the City's recreational resource of the rhis trail provides Newport Beach residents with 4.17-A purports to summarize recreational menu attempts to discuss short term impacts. This rail: system along San Diego Creek and require r the; system. Further, the Document fails to the;potential impacts on the San Joaquin Marsh. :ts on the San Joaquin Marsh will not to impair this ge 4,17-10. However, the Document contains no lue. ;Further, the Document fails to consider or nce from the Project to the recreational resource. )t:serve to inform the public or enable :tioA and operation of the project will result in e. nd any of its Alternatives will bring passengers to 1 address the impacts of this increased passenger the recreational resource. il mjtigation measures for impacts to recreational mt levels of generality. CEQA requires more i measures? Who can enforce the mitigation measures are being properly sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:26PM; Page 14/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 13 February 13, 2001 The Agencies should revise the D'ocument',to include additional information and analysis on potentially significant short tern impacts G i.e., air, noise, restricted access during construction) that could affect the City's and the •region's recreational and natural resources including impacts on the bike trail systelrk and the San Joaquin Marsh. Further, the Agencies should bring the Document back from the strdtosphere of general impacts and mitigation, and provide specific discussion of impacts, address the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing mitigation measures and who if an} agency is.responsible for oversight. XIII. Section 4 19• Construction Impacts land Related Downstream Impacts. The Document attempts to address construction impacts oneach resource or activity. As discussed above, the Document fails to recognize that the Project may have impacts on John Wayne Airport and upon sensitive resources within the City. For instance, as to construction impacts on Transportation activities, the Document attempts to address impacts on traffic operations. However, the Document fails, to address any impacts on the operation or facilities which serve the Airport. The Agencies should revise the Document to address construction impacts in connection with the Airport. 5 Further, the Document states that;, "Construction activities may adv4rselY affect park and recreational facilities directly adjacent to The CenterUile build alternatives and moss. This disturbance would consist of detours of public trails, construction noise, and dust. These impacts can be mitigated after thi implementation of appropriate mitigation. These construction activities are not expected to be significant." SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.19-9. This unsupported conclusion regarding no significant impacts and available but uncommitted mitigation dogs not satisfy CEQA requirements. CEQA requires much more: the Agencies should identify_ and discuss the construction impacts for each Alternative and address impacts including downstream impacts which may affect water resources, sensitive habitat and other resources within the City including noise impacts on sensitive areas including San Joaquin Marsh.as well as dust impacts to San Diego Creek and the Bay. XIV. Section 4 2. 1)emoQrapmcs neignpprnOugs unu Y x—m— auu �ucnw. The Document attempts to address the Project's impacts on demographics and neighborhoods but its focus is too narrow. Fbr instance, the Document states that Project and its Alternatives would attract new transit riders fo the, Project's stations and that all of these new users would be within walking distance of the stations. The Document concludes that local area residents would not need to park at the statiob s. Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:26PM; Page 15/25 Leslie Rogers, ETA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 14 February 13,2001 This assumption is unsupported lay t California. Area residents may park neaij,st believe that to the extent that residents o£N riders will walk to the stations. Moreover, i walking distance, considering the confrgura and northern Newport Beach. The Agencie of parking needs at each of these stations in impacts and to propose mitigation measures XV. Section 4 20: Cumulative Impacts The Document attempts to analyze states that "transit mode share would be:Uic Presumably, this would affect travel to and concludes that the cumulative impacts are c passenger demands at John Wayne Airpgit the Document to include a discussion of #hi demands including scheduling at John Wa5 Further, the Document fails to eyalt and its Alternatives on housing and service; Corridor is high. The Project may result;in new transportation corridor with attendant i revise the Document to address the cum4lai housing and services, and propose necessar In addition, the Document addrei sensitive habitat. As to water resources; construction related impacts on surface i "Project related runoff would projects." SDEIS/RDEIIL, page 4.20-7. Ho there will be cumulative impacts. cumulative impacts. �1 As to natural resources, the Docur "... most areas of the habitat wit} disturbed or developed." e facts and the realities of life in Southern lions including stations 27 through 30. We do not wport Beach will become new riders, that these new seems unlikely that all new riders would live within on of adjacent residential areas in southern Irvine should revise the Document to include an analysis irder to assess fully the potential Project related if necessary. nulative impacts in Section 4.20. The Document asedi and patronage would be increased." >m John Wayne Airport. Although the Document lsider "beneficial impacts," we doubt that increased a "beneficial impact." The Agencies should revise umulative impacts of the Project on air traffic : Airport. to and analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project i For instance, the cost of housing within the ,concentration of high density housing along the creased demand for services. The Agencies should je impacts.of the Project and its Alternatives on mitigation, cumulative.impacts to water resources and to Document notes the "possibility of short-term e and concludes that: to existing or potential runoff from other is not comforting: this simply states that ire analysis and mitigation of such surprisingly states that: Corridor area have been previously sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181 il Feb-13-01 12:27PM; Page 16/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 15 February 13, 2001 SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.20.8. Any degradhtio# of tl problem; further, the Document fails to recognize t cumulative impacts of the Project and otlier related downstream within the City. The Agencies should cumulative downstream impacts and provide the nt t is not a reason to continue the rnstream impacts of the Project. The is may create significant impacts the Document to address the y mitigation. XVI. Section 4.21: Utner impact 0-0 lueratr a {;ipuiLL x1oubilir auu r MR As indicated above, the Project and itsjAltem tives' growth inducing impacts would generate increased moderate and high de Ysity housin along the Corridor and its stations. As to the stations in the vicinity of City, stations 271throug 30, these impacts may be significant. Further, the Document notes that?` i N "Once operational, The Centerline build alt 1 energy." atives would consume slightly more energy on a daily basis thari,the No Bui Alternative, for propulsion ij SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.21-2. Although this section discussion of energy impacts, again we ehcourage tl the current reality: Energy costs are soaring; given t the Agencies should revise the Document to reflect mitigation. XVH. Section 4.5: Public Services and on City Services and Utilities. ? , This section attempts to address the Project', As noted above, the Project will affect the power uti Agencies should revise the Document totshow this i In addition, the Document attempts tojshow ignores the City's joint service agreement.with area and fire services. The Agencies should revise theD such agreements and propose any mitigation ivhidh spears at odds with the Document's Agencies to revise the Document to reflect Project's increased energy consumption, energy shortage and propose necessary )acts on Public Services and Utilities. Southern California Edison. The ;t and provide necessary mitigation. -oject impacts on Public Services but ties and the County of Orange for police :ument to address the Project's impacts on necessary. Section 4.6 attempts to address ir4pacts on vilual quality and aesthetics. First, as indicated above, the Document's discussion of all i ' 3acts including visual quality and aesthetic impacts is very general and undercuts theipublic's a lity to comment and the decisionmakers' ability to decide on the correct alternative: i Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 16 949 650 1181; �1 1 February 13, AN, I Further, the Project threatens substantial advc stations, large platforms, overhead catenaiy power s} walls. The Document contains no specifics for these review the Document to assess these implcts for the San Joaquin Marsh. In addition, Section 4.6.2 employs a rating sy impact score of 2.1 or more is considered a signific& However, the numerical rating is not app#ed to the n revise the Document to carry over the rating system clearly state whether an impact is significantly advet page 4.6-21, states that significant visualtimpacts we Center/UC. However, the impacts discus'sionibelow Joaquin Marsh) states that the visual impact,Yould b viewers in the San Joaquin marsh would;also•see the intersection of Campus and University. A clear disc should be provided for this unique location. XIX. Section 4 7• Safety and becurnv—ivarinc i As indicated above, Guidelines section 151 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Haridbook pul airport -related safety hazards and noise problems. Orange County's 1998 comments, neither the;Dov resource or address this issue. The Agencies should revise the Document analysis of the Project's impacts on airport safety. Feb-13-01 12:28P6t; Page 17125 aesthetics impacts associated with ns, parking and substations and noise 1 other areas. The Agencies should Diego Creek regional trail and for the .ern to determine a visual impact; a visual impact which would require mitigation. pacts discussion. The Agencies should to the impacts discussion. The text should % For example, the fourth paragraph on ld,occur at the University Town its statement under Viewpoint 21 (San low. This seems inconsistent because tation and other infrastructure at the tsion of impacts and possible mitigation requires that the Agencies must use the I to assist in addressing potential .te the Airport Land Use Commission for nor the DEIS/DEIS considers this a discussion of this resource and an Ip,4w 4.*d. �1,flo 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } u February 14, 2001 Dinah Minteer Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92863 RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for The CenterLine Rail Transit Project Dear Ms. Minteer: On February 13, 2001, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach heard a presentation on The CenterLine rail transit project from Mr. Bill Hodge of the Orange County Transportation Authority. The City Council also heard a presentation from the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee concerning their review of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/RDEIR) for that project. Following these presentations, the City Council formally endorsed the Environmental Quality Affairs Committees comments on the SEIS/RDEIR. These comments were submitted to your office on February 13, 2001 and a copy is attached. The City of Newport Beach recognizes that the environmental analysis in the SEIS/RDEIR is for a conceptual engineering project and that a more detailed analysis will be conducted in the preliminary engineering phase. Nevertheless, the comments of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee should be given all due consideration in the SEIS/RDEIR and in future environmental studies concerning this project. The City of Newport Beach also has concerns regarding Minimum Operational Segment Central (MOS Central). This is the only segment extending to the John Wayne Airport area that does not continue to the Irvine Transportation Center and adjacent MCAS El Toro. The City is concerned that the project could halt with the MOS Central segment, leading to the intensification of John Wayne Airport and the surrounding area. The City believes that a closer examination of the growth - inducing impacts on the employment centers that The CenterLine project is intended to serve should be considered. Furthermore, the growth -inducing impacts on facilities such as John Wayne Airport should also be considered, especially with respect to the potential selection of MOS Central as the locally preferred alternative. Sincerely, Homer Bludau City Manager City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 F,WPO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �d Rr > A PLANNING DEPARTMENT t 53o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Li TTT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656 GciFonN`r (949) 644-3 (949% 44-3250 200; FAX 6 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: STUDY SESSION REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: The CenterLine Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report February 13, 2001 Patrick J. Alford (949) 644-3235 SUMMARY: Discussion on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for The CenterLine rail transit project. Background The CenterLine Rail Transit Project is a 28-mile rail transit system proposed for Central Orange County. Bill Hodge from the Orange County Transportation Authority will be at the City Council meeting to make a presentation on the project. In September 1999, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact report for the The CenterLine Rail Transit Project. In December 2000, DOT and OCTA submitted at a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for The CenterLine Rail Transit Project. Analysis The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/RDEIR) for The CenterLine rail transit project was prepared in to analyze revised build alternatives that were not evaluated in the September 1999 DEIR. The SEIS/RDEIR evaluates seven (7) build alternatives, which OCTA will use to select the locally preferred alternative. The build alternatives include four (4) candidate Minimum Operational Segment (MOS) alternatives. The MOS alternatives will be considered by the OCTA as an initial segment if one of the build alternatives is selected as the locally preferred alternative. MOS Central Minimum Operational Segment Central (MOS Central) is of the most interest to the City of Newport Beach vis-A-vis the intensification of John Wayne Airport and its environs. MOS Central is a 15.4-mile segment running from the Anaheim Resort to the Irvine Business Complex. It is the only segment extending to the John Wayne Airport Area (JWA) that does not continue to the Irvine Transportation Center and adjacent MCAS El Toro. The basic concern is that the project could halt with the MOS Central segment, leading to the intensification of JWA and its environs. The SEIS/RDEIR identifies MOS Central as the most cost-effective of the MOS segments in terms of cost per new rider. However, the environmental analysis does not appear to favor MOS Central over any of the other segments. Growth-Inducini? Imnacts The SEIS/RDEIR contains a brief evaluation of potential growth -inducing impacts. However, the conclusion is that "the CenterLine build alternatives are not expected to cause overall growth within the region, but may redirect or focus a small portion of anticipated growth around station areas." The California Environmental Quality Act requires an environmental impact report include a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. By defining the surrounding environment as "the region," the SEIS/RDEIR fails to examine the catalyst effect that a transportation project can have on the adjacent area. A closer examination of the growth -inducing impacts on the employment centers that the CenterLine project is intended to serve should be considered. Similarly, the growth -inducing impacts on facilities such as John Wayne Airport should also be considered, especially with respect to the potential selection of MOS Central as the locally preferred alternative. The public review period for the SEIS/RDEIR ends on February 14, 2001. The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) is expected to complete their review of the SEIS/RDEIR on February 12, 2001 and staff will present an oral report of their findings at the study session. Staff will forward EQAC's comments and those outlined in this report to OCTA, if so directed by the City Council. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICK J. ALFORD Assistant City Manager Senior Planner Attachment: CenterLine SEIS/RDEIR Executive Summary. CenterLine RDEIR February 13, 2001 Page 2 By: Hawkins Law Offices; Ir J M E M To: From: 949 650 1181; O R A Leslie Rogers, Regional Administrator, FTA; Arthur Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Feb-13-01 12:18PM; Page 2 "RECEIV D A�7ER AGEND� PRINTED:"S#a a N D U M Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ('EQAC") City of Newport Beach Subject: U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration's ("FTA") and Orange County Transportation Authority's ("OCTA") Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Environmental Impact Report ("SDEIS/RDEIR") for the Orange County CenterLine Project (the "Project") Date: February 13,2001 Cc: Mayor Gary Adams and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach :; -a "r•`z 60 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Stipementhi Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Environmental Impact Report ("SI- /RDLqR" or the "Document') for the Project prepared by FTA and OCTA; the Project includes design, construction and operation of a light rail line through the heart of Orange County. Collectively, we refer to FTA and OCTA as the "Agencies." These comments incorporate any and all comments received by the Agencies in connection with the Project. I. A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the Agencies reconsider the SDEIS/RDEIR, revise the document to address the Project's impacts in connection with the John Wayne Airport and flight schedules, natural resources in and around fhe City and other issues discussed below, and recirculate the document for public comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's ability to review the SDEIS/RDEIR, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to recognize the significant impacts to the John Wayne Airport and to the City of ariy truncated alignment which does not carry passengers south to the -Irvine Spectrum and the Irvine Transportation Center. n rn_ rn 0 Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:19PM; Page 3 c Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leaby, OCTA Page 2 February 13, 2001 which: (3) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to discuss, identify, analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts of increased passenger loads to the John Wayne Airport; (4) The SDEIS/RDEIR fails to recognize, analyze and mitigate the Project's impacts on the jewel of Newport Beach —San Diego Creek and the Back Bay. (5) The SDEIS/RDEIR contain other failings discussed below; the Agencies should address these and other issues. I 1 1 RPM) tf ).. . 19' I 17 fn An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document 11. . serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and deeisionmakers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Cow Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District gricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929. In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. Some projects such as general plan adoption deal with general issues; but CEQA also applies to small projects which require merely a conditional use permit. The Dent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:20PM; Page 4 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 3 February 13, 2001 analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are conc rrted. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Finally, in colmection areas near requires: "When a lead agency prepares : comprehensive airport land use has not been adopted for a proji public use airport, the agency s: Handbook published by Caltrat preparation of the EIR relative problems." CEQA Guidelines section 15154(a). a recent amendment to the CEQA Guidelines EIR for a project within the boundaries of a m or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan within two nautical miles of a public airport or 1 utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Division of Aeronautics to assist in the potential airport -related safety hazards and noise The federal standards establish for evaluating an EIS may be more relaxed than the California standards for evaluating an EI . Nonetheless, an EIS should be a self contained document which informs the decision ers and the public "without the need for undue cross- reference." Baltimore Gas and Electric , o. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1983) 462 U.S. 87, 99-101, n. 12 and 13. Finally, CEQA Guidelines secti set forth in section 15160 are not exhau with the Guidelines to meet the needs o fulfill the content requirements of Attic Article 11 include a "Subsequent EIR," FIR." Article 11 does not address a "R reveals no such use. The Executive Summary att Process. The Summary attempts to Statement and the Revised Environ 15160 discusses various types of EIRs. The variations ve: "Lead agencies may use other variations consistent rther circumstances." ld. However, all EIRs must 9 of the CEQA Guidelines. L The types of EIRs in supplement to an EIR," and an "Addendums to an ised EIR." Further, a review of the CEQA case law to explain the Project History and the Decision Making .n the need for the Supplemental Environmental Impact . Impact Report. However, this section fails to ex . ain why the EIS is supplemental and the EIR is revised. Indeed, without explanation, this difference will lead to confusion and obscure the purpose and the standards applicable to an evaluation) of the Document. The Document should clearly explain the process and the rationale for the development of this new category of a Revised EIR. Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb•13-01 12:20PM, Page 5 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 4 February 13,2001 Further, the Agencies have attempted to make the Document and the earlier DEIS/DE1R for the Project generally available to the public. However, this attempt has met with difficulties. First and foremost, the Document is availa le on CD-ROM and on the OCTA website. Although the Document is available in this electrooi medium, the formatting of the Document precludes the ability to copy portions of the Docurrleirt for comment. Second, the Document's current fo at is difficult to read in the electronic medium: the paper copies are superior. Unfortunt ee ately, paper copies are not generally available. i We suggest that in the future the {Agencies make other such documents fully electronic and allow for ease of use. ' �i IIT. Section 1: Statement of Puruosq ind Need. As indicated above, this Section purports to discuss the background of the Project and the need for the Document. However, this Section fails to discuss and explain in a clear fashion the need for a Revised EIR, instead of some Addendum or other document. One of the reasons for the SDEIS/RDEIR is the discussion of the;new Alternatives. As discussed immediately below, the Alternatives discussion is inadequateF the Agencies should continue to revise and improve the Document so that the Alternatives discussion fulfills its promise. Further, and more importantly, the {scope of the Document is truncated: Section 1.2 purports to discuss the regional setting of the Project, However, this section fails to consider the Project's location in relation to the City ¢tjNewport Beach and the Project's impacts on the City including impacts on the John Wayne Airport, San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay. Correlatively, section 1.2 erroneously st4t4s that the Pmjcct Corridor consists of mixed uses of residential and commercial uses. Howettet, this statement ignores the important airport use in the vicinity of the City. The Agencies shot.44 revise, supplement or otherwise correct the Document to discuss specifically the Project's imp*fp on the City, the Airport and the City's resources including San Diego Creek and the Upl*;Newport Bay. Section 1.5.5 addresses future e: such as the Project are iterative with co: in the Project. However, as discussed k iterative process. Each document must discussed below, the Document fails to failing undercuts the Document. The A details. mental processes. This section states that projects i release of environmental documents for changes the Agencies must carefully proceed in this n specifics details rather than general promises. As n specifics as to the Project Alternatives and this :s cannot rely on the iterative process to delay these By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:21PM; Page 6 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 5 February 13, 2001 1V. Section 2• The Project Descriptio_ T Project Alternatives and the Need for Snecificity. 1 As indicated above, the SDEIS/R�$IR sets forth additional alternatives including a discussion of the three original alignmen>s 1 a new discussion of three new alignments as well as a decision on the Locally Preferred Alternative ("LPA') and a Minimum Operable Segment ("MOS"). At the outset, we note that all Ali south including the Irvine Spectrum and Spectrum and the Irvine Transportation ( optional. Further, the MOS Central stol southern areas in Orange County. Althol truncated alignment or MOS, any such a impacts on the City and the John Wayne Destinations, then the Project becomes o John Wayne Airport. As discussed belo, environmental impacts on transportation for the John Wayne Airport. The Agenc such impacts and should recommend an a mandatory, not optional, stop for the P: However, Alternatives discussic the environmental analysis in the Docut compare the potential impacts of the tht well as the impacts of the various MOS Alternatives —both the alignments and ti decisionmakers can determine the exter. mitigation. Further, not only is the impacts ( floats at a similar abstract level. CF.QA mitigation. However, because of the im mitigation suffers. Indeed, based upon I the public nor the decisionmakers can c1 adverse impacts would be mitigated to t either the proposed mitigation must real significant impacts or the Agencies mus considerations. However, the Document fails to mitigation make it impossible to detem Alternative would be the Dent Alternatives for the LPA identify a line to the Irvine Transportation Center (collectively, the Irvine stet are referred to as the "Southern Destinations") as It the Irvine Business Complex and does not service i the Document does not address the impacts of native would likely have significant environmental rport. If the preferred alternative omits the Southern which merely transports passengers to and from the any such result would create significant 3ise, air quality and other resources for the City and should revise the Document to include discussion of -mative which includes the Southern Destinations as in the SDEIS/RDEIR fails for several reasons. First, :rit does not contain enough information and specifics to stew alignments and the three original alignments as dl ematives, This problem is significant: if MOS—lack specifics, neither the public nor the o€the impacts and the nature and extent of the proposed fission at a general level but the proposed mitigation :s not require "floating mitigation" but real is discussion remains at a general level, the proposed general discussion of impacts and mitigation, neither rm with any degree of certainty that significant w a level of significance. CEQA requires more: ;duce the identified significant impacts to less than ake findings to support a statement of overriding ;h this level: the lack of specifics as to impacts and which alignment Alternative and which MOS unerior alternative. The Agencies must address this By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 660 1161; Feb-13-01 12:21PM; Page 7 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 6 February 13, 2001 issue: in view of the stated purposed of the Document, it must discuss impacts and mitigation not on a gcneral level but on a specific level do that the public can meaningfully comment and the decisionmakers can accurately decide on the superior a#ematives. We recommend that the description of the alternatives include the following information: (1) The exact location of eachi of the stations for each Alternative Alignment; (2) For each station, the Document should identify the proposed access and demand for both pedestrians and vehicles; s (3) For each station, the Docu ntent should identify the nature and extent of the facilities including loading facilities anckparking for passenger vehicles (For example, stations 27 throogh 30 may serve the residents of Newport Beach, but it is unclear whether parking would be proivided at these stations.) i (4) For each Alternative, the Dpeument should identify and discussion the locations of all electrical substations and ojher facilities needed to serve the proposed routes. This lack of specifics also causes problems .for the Document's discussion of mitigation measures. The Document does not identify specific mitigation measures and does not commit the Agencies to it specific mitigation program.! This failing uOdercuts the viability ofthe Document: neither the public nor decisionmakers can assess with ty that potentially significant adverse impacts of the Project or what mitigation rttres are 4cssarY, Further, the Document falls to state what agcney implements and enforces the mitigation measures and what agency has oversight to ensure that the promised mitigation is impllemented. Without more speck information, the Document does not provide the City and t4epublic at lar#e with assurance that the Document has identified all adverse impacts and provideq the necessarynitigation therefor. If the Agencies select an LPA and MOS without further defidticO of the Project, its impacts and its mitigation, the Document is insufficient to support any di jetetionary actipn to proceed With the projecL V. Section 3.0 of the Document att service and ridership; roadway network address transportation impacts to an imi isportation Impacts: impacts on transit impacts. However, this section fails to feature adjacent to the City: John Wayne Airport. i The Project will transport many ers to from the Airport and this increase will affect the Airport and its flight scheduling Get the Doc ent contains no discussion at all of this impact or any proposed mitigation. The Agencies m t sin revise the Document to include a detailed discussion of this transportation aid impact, and, vide specific mitigation for any such i c ent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:22PM; Page 8/25 i } I Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 7 February 13,2001 impact. Indeed, any impact to the Airport include mitigation for the City. Further, this section fails to Document candidly concedes: "Additional environmental aru and an MOS are selected (sic) environmental analysis will fa the MOS that will be defined c substations and park -and -ride i SDEIS/RDEIR, page . Although requirements. The Document dips in disclosure obligations and its informs CEQA does not sanction the promise either include specifics or tread at a g For instance, the Document However, the Document provides only "OCTA will work collaborat to refine the exact locations c facility would function. The areas, the need to minimize I shared parking at existing or "OCTA will mitigate all extent physically, enviro parking impacts will be i SDEIS/RDEIR, pages 3-51 through 3-32. The Agencies' promise and dery to satisfy CEQA's requirements. `By Jef, conditions run counter to that policy of CE feasible stage in the planning process." ,emu 296, 308. See Bozung v Local A eng cv Fr principle that the environmental impaci. sln planning."); Mount Sutro Defense Comm App, 3d 20,34 (noting that environmentat process "where genuine flexibility remain: affect the analyze Hence, any airport mitigation must impacts and mitigation. Indeed, the vill be conducted after the selection of an LPA e CenterLine sect. This additional more specifi4 project characteristics related to preliminary cogineering such as specific power vise is encouraging, it fails to satisfy CEQA of specifics Ili nd soars in generality: in order to satisfy its quirements, a Document must deal in specifics. specifics: Te Agencies should revise the Document to to address ark mitigate the Project's parking impacts. t The Cente' Line cities on a park and ride plan : and ride f ilities and'how each park and ride Ian will acepunt for the character of the station a impacts, the opportunity to provide transit orieed developments. on -street and ` ff street parking impacts to the and financiallifeasible. A mitigation plan for urina the develoament of the LPA." on the mitigation of the significant parking impacts fails Ong enviromi idrital assessment to a future date, the IA which reqt ' environmental review at the earliest tr m v. Co of Mend in (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d mation Com. 1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the Sd be asses se as early as possible in government ee V. Regeen of University of Califomia (1978) 77 Cal. roblems sho d be considered at a point in the planning I. CEQA regJ*, s more than a promise of mitigation of f i t By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13.01 12:23PM; Page 9/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 8 February 13, 2001 significant impacts: mitigation measures in* really a accomplish this and satisfy the disclosure aid analytic specifics the parking mitigation. VI, Section 41• Land Use lmnacts and Joan wa in 1998, the Airport Land Use ConWssion for requested that the EIR include: the impact. The only way to vents of the Document is to discuss in County commented on the Project and "... a detailed analysis of the poteqW impacts thid may be caused by, or to, the locating of rail line or station facilidgs within any �oise Impact Zones, Accident Potential or Clear Zones, Height Restriction Zones for John Wayne Airport .... "The Commission's Airport Environs Land Use I (AELUP) provides detailed information regarding these impacezones and the ligation measures that may be required for projects within them." ' f Neither the DEIS/DEIR nor the Documentiaddresses this slue. Indeed, for the City, the AELUP may present significant issues which affect the Lir Dject's inn on the City. To the extent that the Document fails to address the Corequest, the ument must be revised: for the City, the Document must identify any such AELUPimpacts, p t mitigation and analyze such impacts and mitigation for the effects onthe City. VIL Section 410• Noise and Vibrilln": Whitt Abolf[ ban DIM IUMCK, Z1212 doaqurru lnarsn and the Upper�ort Day, Ro_ond I? ; As discussed immediately below, it ksection 4.13 which addresses impacts on water resources, the Document contains a truncated descrip6n of San DI&o Creek and San Joaquin Marsh. OCTA must remember in the San Joaquin Toll R r EIR, the neise impacts to this sensitive area required the construction of a sound mitigation wall. ocu Dment twins no discussion of noise impacts on the San Joaquin Marsh. Although this is not Incited within the City of Newport Beach, it forms part of the Newport Bay ecosystem. ',The Upper *Pxt Bay Ecological Reserve is a regionally significant natural resource loca i0d within N Beach. The Document should address any potential impacts to the habitat in the! in Joaquin and any indirect impacts to Upper Newport Bay. Following identification oflhe impacts to 1 sensitive resources, the Document should propose mitigation. 1 1 By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:23PM; Page 10/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 9 February 13, 2001 V1II. Newport Ban Round II. The Document's vision of water resources in the "All discussion of existing water resources ... v Costa Mesa and the City of Irvine getting section jurisdictions that are potentially ati%cted." This conclusion falls far short of the level of an impact In addition, Figure 4.13.1 attempts However, the Project overlays render the v appreciate the locations of San Diego Cree Two Alternatives directly affect Altemative. Yet the Document fails to "Portions of IAA, MOS-South B a Diego Creek Channel. Although t creek, they do cross the channel at impact that would alter surface wa of the Project is myopic: L be described under the City of since those are the only required for an EIR. neate sufface waters in the vicinity of the Project. map im ssible to read. Further, the maps fail to Joaquinllvlarsh and the Upper Newport Bay. ego Creeki the Irvine Alternative and the Elevated impacts tQ this resource: EA 2 trave the natural watercourse of the San e alternativmostly travel along the bank of the twin points. This is not considered a significant drainage pa Wms." SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.13-5. This conclusion is not alone would require some recognition and 6itigatior is Further, given the lack of specifici stations, the Document cannot address the groundwater. Nonetheless, without quant concludes that the amount of impervious ; groundwater recharge. Again, the Docum Agencies should address the impacts of th DL Section 4.14, Natural Res Newport BM Round III. The upper Newport Bay Ecolog located within the City of Newport Bear City. Although the Document attempts City, the Document fails to consider the impacts for any such upstream impacts. Joaquin Marsh and Newport Bay. :t of the has an i keserve is None of the tent of such 1 particular, t s I� ii is: presumably the construction impacts Document has no time for such analysis. i parking and access to the Project and its vious surfaces on drainage and of such impervious surfaces, the Document i the Project would not affect drainage or ratory, not dictatorial. purpose. The faces and propose appropriate mitigation. gionally significant natural resource eject Alternatives are located within the to natural resources upstream from the acts and fails to trace the downstream toject has the potential to affect the San By: HawKins Lae Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb•13.01 12:24PM; Page 11/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 10 February 13, 2001 For instance, Figure 4.14-5C does notdelineate thcbiotie resources adjacent to the Project Alternative alignment along Campus Drive. Further, Figure 4.14.3 fails to identify biological resources in the San Joaquin Marsh along the south side of Michelson Drive, Page 4.14-4 recognizes the presence of a strip of coastal sage scrub (CSS) resources which the Irvine Ranch Water District has installed on the berm along Carlson Avenue and Michelson Drive. Presumably, the District's installation of such habitat is mitigation for one ofthe District's project's impacts. However, the last paragraph statds that focused gnateatcher surveys found no suitable habitat along any of the Project Alternatives This statement fails to recognize the IRWD mitigation: CSS is suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher. ,The Agencies should revise the Document to include a study for protected species including the gtiptcatcher for all locations along the Alteratives. Similarly, the Agencies should revise the Document to include a study for the least Bell's vireo in the riparian habitat to be affected. These studies,should include habitat areas adjacent to Campus and Michelson. Section 14,14.3.1 addresses the Stail'Recommendod Alternative's impacts on natural resources. Among other improvements, the alternative includes the widening of Michelson Drive. This widening would affect IRWD's CSS llestomflon arcs. First, the Document should include a figure which identifies this IRWD's CSS restoration area As the Agencies know, the state and federal resources agencies consider CSS twbe a sensitive habitat. This resource should be listed on page 4.14-27. Further, page 4.14-30 states.ihat the Michelson widening may require `removal of coastal sage scrub along the road edge ..." The Document concludes: "The removal of landscaped coastal sage scrub is not considered significant, since the native vegetation provides sparse cover with little to no understory and does not provide a functional corridor for wildlife movement," Page 4.14-30. Hub? If the CSS in the IRWD restoration," does not have high value for biological resources, this section should explain the rationale for the, valuation. The above quotation fails to evaluate the value of the IRWrestoratiort D at'ea. The Agencies cannot merely draw a conclusion without analysis. The Agencies should reirise the Document to discuss this impact and discuss what happens to the landscaped mitigation on thin: mitigated IRW- D project impacts. Further, the Agencies should revise the second paragraph on pagl14.14-30 to include discussion of the value of this CSS area for wildlife and whether it constitutes important CSS. i The Document states that constru4on impacts will affect natural resources including the riparian habitat along all Alternatives. Thd Agencies should revise the Document to include a mitigation measure to require surveys for sensitive plant species be conducted prior to start of construction. Further, page 4.14-37 discusses "other wildlife" which was not defined in the setting or impacts discussions. The Agencies should rtvise this section to include mitigation for such impacts. 9y: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:24PM; Page 12/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page l l February 13, 2001 Finally, as indicated above, the Document fails to consider any of the Alternatives' downstream impacts of the City's sensitive -resources including the Bay and San Diego Creek. The Agencies should revise the Document to include discussidr,i and analysis of these downstream impacts as well as propose adequate mitigation. Section 4 15• Enew Imacts and'the 2000-01 EntM- Crisis. Section 4.15 states: "California and Orange County have enjoyed sufficient energy supplies through much of the 1980s and 1990s. ... Electricity within Orange County is provided primarily by Southern California Edison (SSE) and in the extreme southern areas of the County by San Diego Gas and Electric (S.O &E). The 25 power plants within the County derive their power supply from a variety of source's including hydroelectric, oil/gas, and waste by-products." SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.15-1. The "analysis" is several years old and reflects the optimism which led to the current energy crisis. Further, the energy methodology which appears to equate oil and gas supplies with electric supplies may requireevision in view of the energy crisis. Given that many Orange County customers have experienced the threat of significant fines for violation of their usage contracts, the Document must discuss the full impacts of ilie energy crisis on the Project and the Alternatives. The Document concludes that, givetr the savings bh oil and gas supplies which the Project would affect, all of the Alternatives "woul4`result in slightly lower energy consumption than the No Build Alternative; therefore, no mitigation for energy impacts is required." SDEIS/RDEIR page 4.15- 5. However, this projection fails to consider the energy crisis. The Agencies should revise the Dmument.to include a full discussion of the impacts of each Alternative in connection with the energy Crisis, the limited supplies, and the unstable character of the energy providers. XI. Section 4 16 Electromaenetic F Ods ("EMF")B101o¢cal Impacts and John Wavne Airnort. The Document attempts to identifX,.potentially affected equipment and facilities as well as sensitive land uses. However, Pages 4.16-8 through -4 fails to identify and discuss impacts on important land uses and resources in the vicinity of the City. First, although the Document notet that ENE may affect biological resources, it recognizes that such impacts are "uncertain." The D*ument incorporates guidelines which have safety factors for such resources. However, the Document does not discuss or analyze the nature or extent of ENE 5 F i r, a' By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:25PM; Page 13/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 12 February 13.2001 impacts on biological resources or address n revise the Document to include a discussion Second, the Document identifies see potentially affected by the Projeces EMF. ) in connection with the John Wayne Airport;, a discussion of such impacts and any propo: The City has important recreational have significant impacts. First, as noted abi and ignores any impacts downstream in th# the Document to discuss these downstreamt related activities in the Newport Bay. t for any such impacts. The Agencies should Impacts and if necessary mitigation. And equipment locations which may be Document fails to consider the ENT, impacts e$ should revise to the Document to include on which the Project and its Alternative may Document focuses solely on upstream impacts Bay and beyond. The Agencies should revise in recteation including boating and other water Further, the Project and its Alternatives may also affect the City's recreational resource of the bicycle trail located adjacent to San Diego Crec k. This trail provides Newport Beach residents with access to regional recreational opportunities. able d.17-A purports to summarize recreational impacts but the table addresses only long ti rrn i mp*. For example, on page 4.17-10, the p section concedes that the Project may closf, t reconstruction of the crossing in order to rdK describe in a clear and understandable fapb The Document states that the proximity itn recreational resource. See SDEIS/RDEM discussion of this resource or its.recreation discuss the Project's noise levels and theid Without this information, the Documentxa decisionmakers to assess whether the cool significant impacts to this recreational rese Further, to the extent that the Proje coastline or the beaches, the Document shi load on the area transportation system and The Document proposes certait resources. Again, the Document soars specificity: who will implement the mi measures? Who will determine whethi implemented? meat attempts to discuss short tern impacts. This ral . #ystem along San Diego Creek and require i thv system. Further, the Document fails to thepotential impacts on the San Joaquin Marsh. is on the San Joaquin Marsh will not to impair this 1; 4,17-10. However, the Document contains no up. (Further, the Document fails to consider or nice from the Project to the recreational resource. >t; a to inform the public or enable tioq and operation of the project will result in of its Alternatives will bring passengers to is the impacts of this increased passenger :eational resource. ion measures for impacts to recreational of generality. CEQA requires more x? Who can enforce the mitigation measures are being properly By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:26PM; Page 14/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCfA Page 13 February 13, 2001 The Agencies should revise the r ocuinent:to include additional information and analysis on potentially significant short term impacts ( i.e., air, noise, restricted access during construction) that could affect the City's and the regiori's recreational and natural resources including impacts on the bike trail systeni and the San Joaquin Marsh. Further, the Agencies should bring the Document back from the strtitosphere of general impacts and mitigation, and provide specific discussion of impacts, address the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing mitigation measures and who if any agency is responsible for oversight. i —XIIts The Document attempts to address G discussed above, the Document fails to recol Wayne Airport and upon sensitive resources impacts on Transportation activities, the DOI operations. However, the Document fail" to which serve the Airport. The Agencies s4oL impacts in connection with the Airport. '�: :ion impacts on each resource or activity. As at the Project may have impacts on John the City. For instance, as to construction attempts to address impacts on traffic s any impacts on the operation or facilities 1e the Document to address construction 3 Further, the Document states thati, i "Construction activities may adveIrsel .affect park and recreational facilities directly adjacent to The CenterLihe b}iild alternatives and moss. This disturbance would consist of detours of public trails, construction noise, and dust. These impacts can be mitigated after the implem4ntation of appropriate mitigation. These construction activities are not expected to be significant." SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.19-9. This un, available but uncommitted mitigation much more: the Agencies should iden Alternative and address impacts inclul resources, sensitive habitat and other i sensitive areas including San Joaquin Bay. d conclusion regarding no significant impacts and t satisfy CEQA requirements. CEQA requires discuss the construction impacts for each vnstieam impacts which may affect water s within tiie City including noise impacts on s wGll as dust impacts to San Diego Creek and the XIV. Section 4 2• Demographics NeIpborhooas ana .visitors ana "uusra. , i The Document attempts to addres"s the Pioject's,impacts on demographics and neighborhoods but its focus is too narrody. Fbr in#anao, the Document states that Project and its Alternatives would attract new transit ri ers {o tht?.ProjectIs stations and that all of these new users would be within walking distance�Q�the stations. The Document concludes that local area residents would not need to park at the stations. t UK By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:26PM; Page 15/25 Leslie Rogers, PTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 14 February 13, 2001 This assumption is unsupported by t California. Area residents may park near sG believe that to the extent that residents ofNi riders will walk to the stations. Moreover, i walking distance, considering the configura and northern Newport Beach. The Agencie of parking needs at each of these stations -in impacts and to propose mitigation measures The Document attempts to analyge states that "transit mode share would be inc Presumably, this would affect travel to and concludes that the cumulative impacts are c passenger demands at John Wayne Airport the Document to include a discussion of th1 demands including scheduling at John Way Further, the Document fails to evalu and its Alternatives on housing and service: Corridor is high. The Project may resulf in new transportation corridor with attendaQt i revise the Document to address the cum4lal housing and services, and propose necessat; In addition, the Document addrt sensitive habitat. As to water resources construction related impacts on surface "Project related runoff would be 4 projects." SDEIS/RDElk page 4.20-7. However; t there will be cumulative impacts. CEQ4 cumulative impacts. As to natural resources, the " .. most areas of the habitat wit disturbed or developed." t ,t e facts and the realities of life in Southern Ions including stations 27 through 30. We do not wport Beach will become new riders, that these new seems unlikely that all new riders would live within on of adjacent residential areas in southern Irvine 'should revise the Document to include an analysis order to assess fully the potential Project related if necessary. tulative impacts in Section 4.20. The Document sed, and patronage would be increased." in John Wayne AirporL Although the Document eider "beneficial impacts," we doubt that increased 1 "beneficial impact." The Agencies should revise nnulative impacts of the Project on air traffic Airport. to and analyze the cumulative impacts of the project For instance, the cost of housing within the ;concentration of high density housing along the breased demand for services. The Agencies should ,•e impacts of the Project and its Alternatives on mitigation, :umulative impacts to water resources and to Document notes the "possibility of short-term i and concludes that: ¢ to existing or potential runoff from other is not comforting: this simply states that Ire analysis and mitigation of such surprisingly states that: Corridor area have been previously By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; Feb-13-01 12:27PM; Page 16/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OCTA Page 15 February 13, 2001 SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.20.8. Any degradation of thi area is not a reason to continue the problem; further, the Document fails to recognize -the ownstream impacts of the Project. The cumulative impacts of the Project and other related p jects may create significant impacts downstream within the City. The Agencies should re krise the Document to address the cumulative downstream impacts and provide the nee(, ssary mitigation. XVI. Section 4 21: utner Impact t-ot♦mue As indicated above, the Project and its; generate increased moderate and high detsityi the stations in the vicinity of City, stations 271 Further, the Document notes that;;: "Once operational, The CenterLine build ait more energy on a daily basis thad,•the NO Bu energy." " i SDEIS/RDEIR, page 4.21-2. Although this section discussion of energy impacts, again we t?#courage ti the current reality: Energy costs are soaring; given 1 the Agencies should revise the Documeuf to r�flect mitigation. XVII. Section 4.5: Public Services and! L on City Services and Utilities. This section attempts to address tiie As noted above, the Project will affect the I Agencies should revise the Document tolsh In addition, the Document attem ignores the City's joint service agreeme and fire services. The Agencies should such agreements and propose any mitig Section 4.6 attempts to address itHpacts on indicated above, the Document's discussion df all_ impacts is very general and undercuts thVpublic's ability to decide on the correct altemative: ives' growth inducing impacts would along the Corridor and its stations. As to 30, these impacts may be significant. itives would consume slightly Alternative, for propulsion pears at odds with the Document's Agencies to revise the Document to reflect Project's increased energy consumption, s energy shortage and propose necessary facts on Public Services and Utilities. Southern California Edison. The ;t and provide necessary mitigation. oject impacts on Public Services but ties and the County of Orange for police :ument to address the Project's impacts on necessary. quality and aesthetics. First, as s including visual quality and aesthetic to comment and the decisionmakers' 8y: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; a Feb-13-01 12:28PM; Page 17/25 Leslie Rogers, FTA Arthur Leahy, OMA Page 16 February 13, 2001 Further, the Project threatens substantial advelso aesthetics impacts associated with stations, large platforms, overhead catenaty power sAtems, parking and substations and noise walls. The Document contains no specifics for thesed otter areas. The Agencies should review the Document to assess -these impacts for the an Diego Creek regional trail and for the San Joaquin Marsh. In addition, Section 4.6.2 employs a rsting : impact score of 2.1 or more is considered a A** ific However, the numerical rating.is not applied > o the revise the Document to carry over the ratting systen clearly state whether an impact is sigtdfi¢antiy advi page 4.6-21, states that significant visuali impllcts v Center/UC. However, the impacts discub6on,belo, Joaquin Marsh) states that the visual impact ould viewers in the San Joaquin marsh would also see tl intersection of Campus and University. A clear di, should be provided for this unique location. XIX. Section 4.7-. Sate As indicated above, Guidelines section IS Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pul airport -related safety hazards and noise problt ms, Orange County's 1998 comments, neither thel�Doci resource or address this issue. The Agencies should revise the Document analysis of the Project's impacts on airport safety. tem to determine a visual impact; a visual impact which would require mitigation. poets discussion. The Agencies should to the impacts discussion. The text should :. For example, the fourth paragraph on ld• occur at the University Town tis statement under Viewpoint 21 (San low. This seems inconsistent because tation and other infrastructure at the tsion of impacts and possible mitigation requires that the Agencies must use the J to assist in addressing potential ,te the Airport Land Use Commission for nor the DEIS/DEIS considers this a discussion of this resource and an DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 Aviation and Aviation Ground Access V. Strategic Investments With the region -becoming an even greater international gateway, there will be an increase in the number of air passengers, as well as goods, coming into (and out of) Southern California. The year 2025 may see the arrival or departure of more than 172 million passengers annually, up from the 80 million recorded in 1999 (see Figure 5.6). At the same time, air cargo demand is expected to reach 9.5 million tons. Not only will these increases require greater capacity in the airport system, but they will also impact roads near the airports. Domestic and international air travel and air cargo will play an increasingly important role in the region's economic growth. Additionally, general aviation airports will play an increasing role in relieving congestion at capacity constrained airports. 'ed The 2025 air passenger forecasts and allocations to airports encompass a range of 164 to 172 million annual passengers depending upon assumptions tested. The 1998 RTP, when forecasted to 2025, indicates a regional demand of 172 million annual passengers. The capacity the er existing urbanized commercial a rpppj system (excluding Pahn,Spn�gs anH f M development, the s passenger capacity by 2025. Figure 5.6 Aviation Passenger Demand 157* 172* 1997 2020 2025 Over the same perio o jm , ai%cargo is I •Source:1998 Adopted Plan expected to grow fro 2.6 'Ilion annual tons in 1997 to 9.5 i lion annual tons in 2025. This cargo growth rate is almost double the passenger growth rate and reflects actual increases since 1992 and expected increases in Pacific Rim air cargo activity. Aviation System Investments — Four Scenarios The growth in air passenger and air cargo demand requires the judicious expansion of existing commercial service airports and the development of former military air bases if the economic benefits of air commerce are to be fully captured by the region. Several military air bases were closed in the 1990s, allowing the region the opportunity to develop the additional airport capacity. These closed air bases include El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, March Global Port, San Bernardino International Airport and Southern California Logistics Airport. Joint -use facilities include Palmdale Regional Airport and (potentially) Point Mugu. The potential adverse impacts of airport expansion require the consideration of regional strategies and policies to decentralize aviation demand and provide an equitable distribution of regional aviation facilities. In addition, the expansion of existing airports and development of former military air bases should take into account the impacts of population and job �/ Southern California f ! Association of Governments 87 The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder pending review of impact analyses and selection L DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments growth in the region so that regional trip making is reduced and community impacts are minimized. Since the 1998 RTP did not fully resolve some regional aviation issues, an Aviation Task Force consisting of elected officials and aviation industry professionals was.formed to develop and evaluate additional scenarios and provide further policy direction to the Regional Council. Four main policy questions were analyzed: ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand by assuming physical constr mts at LAX and other urbanized airports? ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand by developing M] oro awd/or other former military bases as commercial airports? I ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand tiirod h bighpe d rail linkages between airports? ➢ Can we decentralize avi 'od � ug ar' et incen �'vel at Palmdale and the Inland Empire airportss?� I V Over a two-year per system scenarios. h RTP Environmental e efij�c}} .dnd evaluated nine new aviation os efe selected for further analysis in the the 1998 RTP. The 1998 RTP Scen rib (iVle i ceYarario) is a placeholder pending review of the RTP Environmental hnpa t po d e selection of a preferred alternative. In this scenario all airports are uncons ed and assumed to be able to expand to meet demand. There are no high speed rail linka a between airports and no market incentives for Palmdale or Inland Empire Airports. The regional aviation demand is forecast to be 157 million annual passengers (MAP) in 2020 and 172 MAP in 2025. Scenario Two examines the question, "Can Ontario, El Toro, Palmdale and the Inland Empire airports meet the majority of future demand?" LAX is constrained to 70 MAP, Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. The term "high speed rail' assumes linkages between airports along the corridor chosen by the Maglev Task Force. The term "market incentives" assumes free parking, free transit to airport from population centers, roadway improvements at Palmdale and Southern California Logistics and full awareness of airports as airport choice options by passengers. In this scenario, regional aviation demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 166 MAP in 2025. cI Southern California The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placcholder \ Association of Governments 88 pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments Scenario Eight is similar to Scenario Two except that LAX is constrained to its estimated physical capacity of 78 MAP. Regional demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 167 MAP in 2025. Scenario Nine examines the impact of expanding LAX (City of Los Angeles Mayor Riordanrs preferred alternative). In this scenario, LAX is constrained to the physical capacity of the improvements (estimated at 86 MAP), with no El Toro. Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. Regional aviation demand in this scenario is estimated at 155 MAP in 2020 and 164 MAP in 2025. Table 5.17 provides a comparative overview of the distribution in the-nurhber of annual passengers between the regional airports as projected for eco i� Tnhle 5.17 ,,,/// Scenario Distribution i Year between BUR ELT Comparative SNA Airports LAX Scenario in Millions rG6`1 1 -- I Overview of Annual PI Passengers PMD' MUG SBD SCI (MAP) Intent HSR Totals 1997 5 n1a 1 8 fig 1„t 1 n/f 116 <1 nla rd'' Na nla I Na 1 80 1998 2020 9 22 1 ` �l 5 <1 2 �2 <1 No No 157 Adopted Plan 2025 9 s 8 03 3 d 1-1 <1 2 2 <1 172 Scenario 2020 9• 9. 0• y 3• , 2 r 2 2 1 3 Yes Yes 156 2 2025 9• 9" " 0" • ' 2 34 2 1 3 166 Scenario 2020 9• 6 " 8• ". 1 26 2 1 rda Yes Yes 156 8 2025 9• 1 Y�B• 8� 3• 2 30 3 2 Na $21 167 Scenario 9 2020 9• a ✓ 86• 3• 5 34 3 1 Na nla 155 2025 9• a� 8• 86• 3• 7 38 4 2 164 . Indicates airport constrained BUR = Burbank ELT= El Toro SNA = John Wayne LAX= Los Angeles Intl LGB = Long Beach MAR = March Global Port ONT= Ontario PSP = Palm Springs PLM = Palmdale MUG = Point Mugu SBD = San Bernardino Intl SCI = Southern Intent = Market Incentives HSR = High Speed Rail California Logistics k�' Southern California 89 The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder `' Association of Governments pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments Adoption of a Preferred Scenario The completion of the analysis of the selected scenarios is expected by Spring 2001 and the recommendation of a preferred aviation scenario for the 2001 RTP Update should occur at that time. The adoption of a preferred scenario for the 2001 RTP Update does not ensure that regional airport development will conform to this scenario because none of these scenarios can predict where airlines will actually choose to initiate service. Forecast demand at some airports may not reach the threshold needed by airlines to justify investments in service. Creative implementation strategies may be necessary to achieve a minimum leve�ploperational efficiency that may be economically attractive to airlines. These strategie may include proceeding with expansion within existing capacity limits at pTposed uiYim airports to meet local demand, coupled with the implementation of market incen4ives ariad high speed rail linkages to emerging airports. A regional aviation plan, structured as a airport development with surface transspj�_ regional aviation plan, new instituti0fial implementation of an approved (egional authority. The recently re�vived ou e potentially function t6this en . r similar entity, could e;es�o> �i le for t be delineated in the gi, n I a ' tiogpll T , is "ec6ssary to coordinate ed t o it ipltment an adopted i ned. �he authority for the rest wi h i regional airport 1 Airpo eAuthority could ;ional Airport Authority, or a lal airport development as would ➢ Provide for re ionalrcat tutp-af the economic development opportunities and job growth created by the rospe { of significant growth in air traffic in the region between now and 2025. ➢ Reflect environmental, environmental justice and local quality of life constraints at existing airports that operate in built -out urban environments. ➢ Distribute maximum opportunity to Southern California airports where population and job growth over the next two decades are expected to be strong and where local communities desire the air traffic for economic development reasons. ➢ Reflect that each county should have both the obligation and the opportunity to meet its own air traffic needs where feasible. ACTION— Support the expansion of capacity at major existing and potential regional airports to handle anticipated increases in both passenger and cargo volume. ACTION— Mitigate the effects of expanding existing airports, and consider the reuse of military air bases so that community impacts are minimized. Southern California The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder Association of Governments 90 pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments ACTION— Maximize air passenger and air cargo utilization of outlying airports in less populated areas. Transportation Demand Management (TDM The potential state of TDM in 2025 depends largely on the level of funding as well as social and institutional commitments. If we were to do nothing beyond the baseline, it is unlikely that we can even sustain the current level of ridesharing, telecommuting and work -at-home, let alone expanding them over the 2001 RTP Update period. While thhetotal number of HOV lane users could increase due to absolute increase in population/employQnt and a more complete HOV lane network, it is unlikely that the number ofvqh�pools wfll increase significantly beyond its current level. //16 .n Recommended Investments in TDM Regionally, we must sustain the carpooling rate translates into m surface streets daily, which in to of travel. f Key recommendations to Mai4tain and ➢ Program fi number of percent drop in the freeways and lion vehicle miles PIC4 the existing carpool market and increase the ➢ Pursue dedic tand e�iunflin�fo`r education and outreach to the general public to increase awareness of p cipation in the regional rideshare program. ➢ Given the regional issue of mobile source emissions shortfalls, consider reinstating Rule 2202 to include employers with less than 250 employees at the work site. ACTION— Support the maintenance of the existing carpool market share and an increase in carpooling. ACTION— Continue to supportfundingfor education and outreach to the general public in order to increase awareness and participation in carpooling and vanpooling. Vanpools Vanpooling is considered one of the most cost-effective TDM strategies for long-distance commuters. The effectiveness of vanpooling is based on its ability to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. Within the SCAG region, there are over 2,000 vanpools in operation, carrying an average of 10 riders and travelling approximately 35 miles per one-way trip. Southern California Association of Governments 91 The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placcholder pending review of impact analyses and selection in,77 �t'A4 y�® `5�..����� I WIN.- 11111". .111; 1 0 -P, qr El MOVING FORWARD --DECISION DOCUMENT2001 July2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L. INTRODUCTION................................................................... 2 II. OVERVIEW OF THE UPDATE PROCESS ..........................5 III. GROWTH..............................................................................9 IV. FINANCE............................................................................13 V. AVIATION...........................................................................19 VI. TRANSIT AND RAIL PROGRAMS....................................23 VII. GOODS MOVEMENT AND TRUCK LANES ..................... 28 VIII. MAGLEV.............................................................................33 IX. HIGHWAYS AND ARTERIALS..........................................36 X. OTHER STRATEGIES........................................................40 XI. NEXT STEPS IN THE PLAN REFINEMENT PROCESS ...45 Southern California Association of Governments MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to present to SCAG's Transportation and Communication Committee (TCC) a number of related issues which must be resolved in order to prepare a 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update. The Regional Transportation Plan must meet the goals which stand the tests of federal and state requirements, together with the crucial requirement of public support and acceptance. This document is designed to encourage discussion about future transportation investments by SCAG's policy committees. Where the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (hereafter referred to as the 1998 RTP) had a plan horizon year of 2020, the 2001 RTP Update will address conditions in 2025. While many of the fundamental considerations surrounding the 1998 RTP remain in place, the 2001 RTP Update process faces the following key issues: ♦ Growth — Since the 1998 RTP, SCAG's growth forecasts have been significantly revised. About one million fewer jobs are now forecast for the region in 2020, and about 0.8 million fewer people. However, the projected regional growth is still dramatic, and most residential growth is expected in outlying areas while jobs remain in the urban core. The issue of jobs -housing balance must be addressed. Air Quality— Since adoption of the 1998 RTP, new air quality planning challenges have come to light. Programs that were expected to yield sufficient emission reductions to meet federal air quality standards — for example, the state's Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance program for motor vehicles — have fallen short of expectations. New official emission factors have increased estimated emissions from mobile sources, meaning that more reductions will be needed than previously thought. in addition, programs that were relied on for emission reductions in the 1998 RTP have been implemented more slowly than anticipated; therefore, additional measures need to be identified. ♦ Finance —The financial outlook is now significantly more constrained than in the 1998 RTP. A shift to alternative fuels to meet air quality goals could mean a loss of as much as $12 billion in gasoline tax revenue over the plan period. Also, several county sales taxes earmarked for transportation will sunset within the next ten years, Southem Celifomia Association of Govemments 2 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 leaving many parts of the region with a limited ability to maintain and operate existing transportation systems, much less invest in new ones. ♦ Transit — The 1998 RTP assumed that substantial service enhancements and significant cost reductions could be achieved using regional "Smart Shuttle" services (on -demand service supported by technology enhancements). The plan indicated that the 20-year savings from this and other transit system changes could be as high as $2.65 billion. Based upon the five regional demonstration projects, the original smart shuttle assumptions were overstated. These demonstration projects showed that the smart shuttle could not operate on a "private for profit basis" and could not function as a large scale substitute for existing transit service. Aviation — The region must find a socially, economically, and environmentally equitable way to meet air travel demand over the next 25 years. This decision must be made within the context of the entire regional transportation system. ♦ Environmental Justice — Since the 1998 RTP was adopted, the federal government has intensified its focus on environmental justice. SCAG will need to meet the challenges of providing transportation and moving towards attainment of air quality standards while mitigating all negative impacts on minorities and low-income populations in the region. Portions of the 1998 RTP unaffected by these issues will remain in place. However, in accordance with updated federal and state planning guidance, the 2001 RTP Update will incorporate growth estimates, proposed projects, and related analyses in five-year increments for the first time. The next section of this document describes the 1998 RTP and some of the key challenges facing the 2001 RTP Update. Succeeding sections present the major subject areas that have been addressed by SCAG committees and Task Forces since the 1998 Plan was adopted. Members of SCAG's policy committees may use the information in this document to debate and design policies that will lead the region towards a livable, prosperous future. Eventually, these issues should be debated by the widest possible audience, including all relevant public organizations at the state, regional, subregional and local levels, public interest groups, transportation providers and users, and citizens from all walks of life and representing all social and economic levels found within the region. From them, Southern California Association of Governments 3 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 SCAG will derive the ultimate expression of the direction which the 2001 RTP Update will follow. Southem Callfomla Association of Govemments 4 MOVING FORWARD.. DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 II. OVERVIEW OF THE UPDATE PROCESS In April 1998, when the Regional Council adopted the 1998 RTP, the growth forecast predicted that regional population would increase by about 6.7 million people (43%) and workers by about 4 million (60%) by 2020. The expected pattern of growth — largely in outlying areas — meant that traffic congestion, already severe, would worsen. The plan relied on emission control measures such as old vehicle scrapping, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance, and other controls yet to be identified to demonstrate conformity with regional air quality plans. To meet these transportation challenges, the 1998 RTP identified net revenues of approximately $23.1 billion' over the plan period (1998-2020) which were available to fund projects in the plan. Of this total, about 43% was allocated to transit -related projects, while 40% was allocated to highway and arterial projects. Every dollar invested in the 1998 RTP was projected to result in $4.69 in benefits. Still, the plan investments could not achieve some of the targets SCAG policy committees had established. For example, the average travel time to work was estimated to be 25 minutes with the plan. This compared well with a time of 36 minutes without the plan, but fell short of the goal established by the Regional Council (RC) of 22 minutes. At the time of plan adoption, the Regional Council expressed concern on a number of significant issues, particularly the growth forecast, finance and aviation. In order to resolve these issues, the Regional Council directed staff to develop an interim update to the 1998 RTP by December 1999. In response to Regional Council direction, SCAG initiated a number of task forces, including Aviation, Finance, Regional Transit, Transit Corridors, Goods Movement, Truck Lanes, Maglev, and RTP Technical Advisory Committee to guide the RTP update process. However, it became apparent by early 1999 that a meaningful interim amendment to the 1998 RTP would not be feasible within the given time frame. In addition, other issues emerged which might put the region at risk of failing in a new analysis of conformity with regional air quality plans. in May 1999, after considering all of these issues, the Transportation and Communications Committee directed staff to work, through the Task Force structure, toward the development of a comprehensive ' In 1995 dollars. Southern Callfomla Assoclallon of Govemments 5 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 RTP Update by April 2001, with a 2025 planning year. The region's current conformity finding will lapse on June 9, 2001. As indicated in the Introduction, a number of critical issues will shape the 2001 RTP Update process: growth, air quality, finance, aviation, transit, and environmental justice. Two of these issues, air quality and environmental justice, are described in further detail below. The remainder of the key issues, along with other significant sections of the Plan Update, are addressed in the chapters that constitute the remainder of this report. For the first time, performance criteria adopted by the regional council was used in developing the 98 RTP. The performance criteria used in the 98 RTP were Mobility, Accessibility, Environment, Reliability, Safety, Livable Communities, Equity and Cost - Effectiveness. In order to comply with the state and federal mandate and at the same time meet our regional goals, the 2001 RTP will continue to be performance based. Performance criteria to be used for the plan update has been updated pursuant to direction of the RTP TAC. Air Quality Based on the ambient air quality requirements and deadlines set by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB), currently there are seven federally designated nonattainment areas in the region. These areas are the South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, San Bernardino County, Searles Valley, Coachella Valley, Antelope Valley (North Los Angeles County), and Imperial County. Of these areas, the South Coast Air Basin faces the most serious air quality problems in the region. The Basin is designated by the U.S. EPA as the only "extreme" nonattainment area for ozone in the nation, and it is a "serious" nonattainment area for both carbon monoxide and PM10 (fine particles). The federal Clean Air Act is implemented via state implementation plans (SIPs), which must be submitted to the U.S. EPA for review and approval. Under federal law, transportation plans must conform to SIPs. Specifically, both the 2000 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which SCAG is in the process of preparing, and the 2001 RTP Update must conform with the emission budgets established in the 1997 Ozone SIP. The SIP calls for attainment of standards in 2010. After subtracting the emission reductions attributed to on -road mobile sources from Southem California Association of Governments 6 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 baseline emissions, the remaining allowable emissions are the emissions budget. The major factor that determines emission budgets is air quality. The region faces new challenges in meeting these air quality transportation conformity requirements. Projects to which 2010 emission reductions were attributed in the 1998 RTP may not be fully implemented by 2010, resulting in potential emission reduction shortfalls. The less -than -expected benefits of the State's Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for motor vehicles result in further emission reduction shortfalls. For the South Coast Air Basin, the emission reduction shortfall associated with the Enhanced IN program and other state programs is approximately 18 tons per day for ROG in the year 2010. Substitute control measures may be needed to achieve the emission reductions originally attributed to these programs. The second challenge the region is facing is the much higher mobile source emission inventory estimates resulting from a new emissions model, compared to the model used in the 1997 Ozone SIP. If the higher emission estimates result in ozone levels that exceed air quality standards, the region would need additional measures to demonstrate air quality attainment. Finally, the demonstration of air quality attainment may have potential adverse impacts on transportation revenue by the year 2010 and beyond (see section below on Finance). Environmental Justice In its 1998 RTP, SCAG conducted an extensive analysis designed to test the equity of its plan for minority and low-income residents of the region. This was done, in part, to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and associated regulations and policies, including President Clinton's 1994 Executive Order on environmental justice. The analysis found that, while overall plan expenditures would benefit high -income groups more than low-income groups, the plan also contained transit elements that would improve accessibility to opportunity for low-income and minority residents of the region. Since the 1998 RTP was released, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration have renewed their commitment to assuring environmental justice in the programs they fund. The agencies recently issued updated planning Southem Cellfomia Assoclation of Govemments 7 MOVING FORWARD —DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 regulations2, and will tie Metropolitan Planning Organization certifications to environmental justice activities. SCAG is responding to these expectations with more detailed analytical approaches and more extensive public outreach efforts. If the analyses show inequities that are not otherwise justified, the plan may be modified or mitigation measures proposed. 2 Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 102, Thursday, May 26, 2000 (65 FR 33922). Southern Celifomla Association of Governments MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 III, GROWTH Current Growth Forecast As the 2001 RTP Update process begins, population estimates predict fewer people in the SCAG region in 2020 than estimated in the 1998 RTP (21.5 million vs. an original estimate of 22.3 million). By 2025, population in the SCAG region is projected to grow to 23 million persons. Similarly, the region's forecasted job level in 2020 will be 9.5 million, approximately 1 million fewer jobs than forecast in the 1998 RTP. By 2025, forecasts indicate that employment in the region will grow to 10 million jobs. Population 16,137,217 16,856,614 17,988,246 19,077,206 20,142,776 21,502,968 � Employment 6,970,545 7,415,962 8,182,819 8,638,311 9,057,572 9,544,132 1 Households 5,201,192 5,378,578 5,730,431 6,160,935 6,595,790 7,140,786 ote: This preliminary forecast Is based on task force recommendation and mechanical disaggregatll analysis purposes only. The composition of the region's population.is also changing. Demographic projections show that population growth in the region will almost exclusively come from two groups — Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders. In fact, Hispanics' share of the regional total population is projected to surpass that of non -Hispanic whites by the year 2003 and will reach 51 % by 2025. Another significant trend is the "graying" of the population as the first members of the Baby Boom generation are approaching their mid-50s. In the SCAG region, the share of elderly persons — aged 65 and above —will rise to 15.4% in 2025, from 9.9% in 1997. Finally, the emerging Internet economy and e-commerce will also affect almost every aspect of the key regional planning variables and modeling tools. This technology can potentially affect land use patterns, air quality, traffic congestion, and local sales tax revenue as consumer behavior changes. These trends — population and job growth, aging population, and e-commerce — pose unprecedented challenges and uncertainties in the development of the 2001 RTP. Southern California Associe8on of Governments 9 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Goals of the 1998 RTP Although current estimates predict slower population growth than 1998 estimates, the region still expects to add almost 7 million people over the next 25 years. New development that goes unchecked can lead to a host of problems, including increased traffic congestion, environmental degradation, loss of open space and farmland, and inefficient public expenditures. Under the strategy of "Livable Communities," SCAG and other policy leaders are placing a growing emphasis on new land use and transportation policies that will accommodate future growth while addressing automobile traffic and air quality concerns. Livable communities encourage efficient growth patterns that promote alternatives to the automobile by creating a mix of homes, shops, work places, parks, and civic institutions that are linked to pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly public transportation centers. Strategies such as transit -oriented and mixed -use development implement a combination of design features, including improved street connectivity, public amenities, and a concentration of residences and jobs in proximity to transit routes, resulting in reduced area -wide traffic congestion and improved air quality. To achieve the goals set forth by the Livable Communities program, the 1998 RTP focused on the following efforts: ♦ Study the impact of the Livable Community strategy on vehicle miles traveled (VMT)• and vehicle trip reductions. ♦ Continue public dialogue and education on the benefits of Livable Communities. ♦ Improve or construct priority bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified in county and Subregional Non -Motorized Plans. ♦ Support continuing efforts by the Center for Neighborhood Technology and the Surface Transportation Policy Project to develop and promote Location Efficient Mortgages (LEMs) and obtain participation agreements by lending institutions. ♦ Implement methodologies to evaluate the mobility and air quality benefits of LEMs. Southem Cellfomia Association of Govemments 10 MOVING FORWARD —DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 ♦ Work with the housing industry, financial institutions, affordable housing interests and agencies to promote the LEM strategy. Livable Communities Subcommittee Because many impacts of the Livable Community strategies are realized at a neighborhood or community scale, it is difficult to quantify benefits at the regional scale. SCAG's Livable Communities Subcommittee was created to address this issue. The Subcommittee has identified the Location Efficiency Index and Transit and Non - motorized Mode Split as two performance indicators of "livability." It is'now investigating ways to quantify the impacts of program strategies on vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air quality. In addition, the Subcommittee has recommended that the following actions be explored to realize the Livable Community vision: ♦ Refine SCAG regional modeling to address land use/transportation and air quality interactions. ♦ Refine and apply new performance measures for Livable Communities. ♦ Establish incentives to encourage the implementation of Livable Community strategies by local governments and subregions, private developers, and financial institutions. ♦ Implement a legislative strategy to support Livable Community goals. One step would be to evaluate the package of bills proposed by the new "Smart Growth" caucus in the California legislature. ♦ Support the Regional Transit Task Force recommendations for transit policy that improve the efficiency, effectiveness, coordination, and stability of transit operation and increase transit mode share within the SCAG region. Implications and Options SCAG is committed, through its RTP, to accommodate projected population and employment growth, while maintaining a high quality of life for all residents of the'SCAG region. The Livable Communities program incorporates a variety of dynamic land use Southem Califomia Associallon of Govemments 11 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 and transportation policies to contribute toward achieving this end. Future efforts will include creating a Growth Visioning Committee to envisage regional growth scenarios to help gauge the effects of future growth and implement strategies to best accommodate it. Southem Cellfomla Asso MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 IV. FINANCE Current Issues in Finance The 1998 RTP projected a constrained financial outlook, but the picture for the 2001 RTP Update is even less optimistic. As Table 1 illustrates, the SCAG region's net revenues for the 2001 RTP per will decline considerably due to a number of factors. First, operations and maintenance shortfalls will continue to grow as the infrastructure ages. Further, anticipated growth in jobs, population, housing, and commerce will only increase highway as well as transit capacity and maintenance needs. Table 1 ..: RTP vs. Dollarsconstant 1997 1998 RTP 2001 Draft 2001 RTP Draft 2001 RTP No AQ Im acts• AQ Impacts* Total Revenues $87.0 $104.4 $93.0 Baseline Costs RTIP and Measure Pro ects 21.3 26.8 26.8 O&M 38.4 49.4 49.4 Bonds 5.4 11.8 11.8 Total Baseline Costs $65.1 $88.0 $88.0 Transit Restructuring Savings $2 8 $0.0 $0.0 Net Available Revenues $24.71 $16.4 $5.0 ' "No AQ Impacts" assumes that gasoline tax revenue is not lost due to a shift to non - gasoline alternative fuels. "AQ Impacts" assumes that it is. t In 1997 dollars. Equivalent to $23.1 billion in 1995 dollars (figure in 1998 RTP). Second, to meet federal and state air quality standards by the year 2010, the region will have to reduce its mobile source emissions to levels set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Strategies to reduce mobile source emissions by converting vehicles to alternative fuels (other than gasoline and diesel) will reduce state and federal gas tax revenues. The 2001 RTP forecast estimates a $12 billion reduction in revenues resulting from steps to meet air quality requirements. Southern California Association of Governments 13 MOVING FORWARD - DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Third, many of the county sales taxes earmarked for transportation will sunset over the next ten years. Only Los Angeles County has permanent local sales taxes that are dedicated to transportation. The loss of sales taxes in Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties would be immediately felt, as the taxes have provided a steady revenue stream for the delivery of many needed highway, local roadway, and transit projects. Region -wide, about 65 percent of all transportation revenues are forecasted to come from local sources, with sales taxes contributing over 50 percent of this revenue stream. Tables 2 and 3 further depict the constrained financial scenarios for each of the SCAG region's counties. Table 2 illustrates the situation with the assumption that fuel tax revenue is lost because of air quality requirements, as described above. Table 3 assumes that fuel tax revenue is not lost. This preliminary analysis indicates that many of our counties will not be able to maintain their current systems, let alone program for any new projects beyond the current RTIP (2001-2006). Table 2 DraftQuality Impacts Dollars)In Billions (1997 Baselino costs I County Total RTIP Measure O&M Bonds ; Total! Net Availablelfor ' Revenues Capital Tax (1907- ; (1997- Baseline Altemailves (4997-. (1997- 'Project 2025) ;.2025),', .'Costs, (1997-2025)� 2025• 2006 Costs, Imperial $0.567 $0.426 $0.077 $ 0.222 $0.000 $0.725 $ 0.158 Los Angeles 63.343 12.723 0.000 31.820 7.246 51.789 11.55 Oran - a 14.894 5.146 1.762 5.634 3.731 16.273 1.38 Riverside 5.271 1.688 0.680 3.899 0.336 6.604 1.33 San 6.061 3.043 0.601 4.160 0.454 8.258 (2.20) Bernardino Ventura 1.673 0.684 0.000 1.226 0.000 1.911 0.24 Metrolink 1.220 0.000 0.000 2.448 0.000 2.448 (1.23) fares only)* Total $93.028 $23.711 1 $3.120 $49.409 $11.767 $88.007 $5.021 " Metrolink ridership (and thus fare revenue) is assumed to be the same with or without the revenue impacts of a shirt away from fossil fuel use. Southern California Association of Governments 14 MOVING FORWARD - DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Table 3 Draft Regional Checkbook: Revenues Without Air Quality Impacts Dollars)In Billions (1997 Baselihe Costs County Total RTIP Measure, 0&M Bonds Total, NeLAV9lie01e Revenues Capital Tax (I'9l 7-' (1997- Baseline for Altergatl,ves „(1J97� ! (+19'97- Project '3 2025) ,;,2025) i Costs (1997-2D25); iii 2025' 2006) Costs Imperial $0.697 $0.426 $0.077 $ 0.222 $0.000 $0.725 $ 0.027 Los Angeles 70.376 12.723 0.000 31.820 7.246 51.789 18.59 Orange 16.471 5.146 1.762 5.634 3.731 16.273 0.20 Riverside 6.205 1.688 0.680 3.899 0.336 6.604 0.40 San 7.365 3.043 0.601 4.160 0.454 8.258 (0.89) Bernardino Ventura 2.115 0.684 1 0.000 1.226 0.000 1 1.911 0.20 Metrolink 1.220 0.000 0.000 2.448 0.000 2.448 (1.23) fares only)* Total $104.450 $23.711 $3,120 $49.409 11 $11.767 $88.007 $16.443 Metrolink ridership (and thus fare revenue) is assumed to be the same with or without the revenue impacts of a shin away from fossil fuel use. Governor Davis's transportation plan, released in April 2000, may provide some additional transportation revenues to the region. The plan proposes to spend $5.2 billion in the State over the next four years towards projects that will relieve traffic congestion, including highway and transit projects. The SCAG region would receive $2.2 billion (about 43% of the total), over and above the funding that will be available through traditional sources. However, the Governor's plan provides only partial project funding, effectively imposing a leverage requirement on local governments. Since most if not all of the projects in the Governor's plan are either identified in the current RTP or can be considered consistent, it can be argued that the proposed plan does not take away resources from the RTP. The Governor's plan could expedite delivery of some projects at the expense of others, which may not have been originally intended in the RTP. in general, implementation of the Governor's plan will complement the 2001 RTP rather than disrupt it. Finance Task Force As of June 2000, the Long Range Transportation Finance Task Force had not yet adopted the current revenue forecast for the 2001 RTP. This forecast is preliminary and contingent upon further analysis. Nevertheless, the Finance Task Force has Southern Califomla Asscclatlon of Governments 15 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 undertaken several activities to address an anticipated revenue shortfall, including the introduction of a finance bill (AB 2742 -- Baugh) in the current legislative session. AB 2742 attempts to increase funding for transportation by capturing an estimated $760 million in gasoline sales tax revenues that currently go into the General Fund. The bill also attempts to achieve greater equity in the distribution of revenues from the state gas excise tax by moving closer to a 50-50 division between the state and local governments (the current share is only 35% for local government). If successful, the bill would provide additional revenues for transit as well as for the maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets and roads. Local governments could receive about $330 million annually statewide. Of this total, the SCAG region would receive: approximately $161 million annually. Capturing.all gasoline sales tax revenues would generate about $186 million in new revenues for the statewide Public Transit Account (PTA), of which the SCAG region would receive about $92 million annually. Implications and Options As described above, traditional revenue sources for providing, maintaining, and operating the SCAG region's transportation system will not meet projected needs, even with the one-time boost in funding that would be provided by the Governor's plan. The proposed AB 2742 by itself will not cover the shortfall. The baseline revenue forecast, coupled with the federal and state mandate that the adopted RTP be financially constrained, Imposes tough choices on the region: either cut back beyond the committed projects (at the risk of not meeting the regional performance and conformity goals), or develop innovative and creative methods of delivering projects to meet the goals. Following are some alternative financing mechanisms to consider: . 1. Pursue passage of Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 3, a bill that establishes a simple majority vote process for continuing the "self-help" county taxes that are scheduled to expire. It also would provide a one-time opportunity for communities without a local transportation sales tax to impose such a tax. Taxes imposed under the provision of SCA 3 would have a term of 20 years and a rate of 1/2 percent. 2. Consider indexing the state gas tax or wholesale gasoline prices by an appropriate market indicator, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This step builds a relationship between the growth in fuel tax revenues Southem Callfomla Assoclabn of Govemments 16 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 and inflation, though it would not resolve the issue of potential revenue impacts from air quality conformity. 3. Initiate a study and a demonstration project to assess the feasibility of implementing highway user fees applied to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A highway user fee would assess a charge for driving at a specified cost per mile. This fee is much like the gas tax because drivers who drive more would have to pay more. A highway user fee or VMT fee would not be eroded by increasing fuel economy or changes in fuel supply, but would be eroded by inflation unless the per -mile fee is periodically adjusted. A preliminary analysis shows that assessing a one -cent VMT fee, escalated each year by a forecasted CPI, would generate approximately $72 billion over the RTP period for the SCAG region. On an annual basis, this one -cent fee would generate approximately $1.5 billion during the initial implementation years and steadily escalate. For comparison purposes, the current 18 cent per gallon state gas tax generates approximately $1.2 billion annually. 4. Expand the use of tolls throughout the SCAG region with a region -wide pricing strategy that would involve establishing "fee assessment points" for electronic toll collection at strategic locations, mainly on freeways, expressways, and other principal arterials. Tolls would be charged during peak periods, with gradual reduction of tolls during the shoulders of peak periods. High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) and transit vehicles would be exempted in order to provide economic incentives for these modes. After analysis, unacceptable impacts on low-income drivers should be mitigated where appropriate: for example, by using toll revenues to expand transit. 5. Explore the option of privatizing many of the proposed toll road facilities. The proposed federal Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act: (HICSA) would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow private entities to issue tax-exempt debt for highway infrastructure construction. Such a program would be helpful in supporting private sector involvement in toll road and truck lane projects in the SCAG region. 6. Seek private sector involvement in the funding of transit facility development and operation through developer contributions, benefit assessment districts, joint development, and value capture'techniques. Related efforts may include contracting out certain transit operations (for example, selected express bus route operations) to private operators. A small subsidy may be needed to initially encourage such franchise operations. Although these private operators would not be completely free Southem Califomla Association of Govemments 17 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 to make fare and route decisions on their own, they would have more flexibility than public systems to improve the efficiency of their operations, thereby lowering costs. 7. Explore innovative federal funding programs such as Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds and the Transportation Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA). GARVEE bonds enable states to fund transportation projects, (including transit projects3), either exclusively or primarily, with future federal highway funds. The TIFIA is a limited five-year pilot program designed to provide federal credit assistance to qualifying major transportation projects of national importance such as intermodal facilities, highway corridors, and inter -city passenger bus and rail facilities and vehicles (including Amtrak and Maglev systems). a Transit bonds are referred to as GANS or Grant Anticipation Notes. Southem Califomla Association of Govemments 18 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 I AVIATION Goals of the 1998 RTP The 1998 RTP adopted a number of policies and Guiding Principles to help guide future regional decisions related to aviation. In general, they promote environmentally acceptable strategies to meet aviation needs that reinforce regional growth patterns and respect quality -of -life concerns at existing airports. They also call for each county to meet its own local air travel demand where feasible. The adopted plan contained a regional aviation system scenario, called the RTP Medium or Baseline Scenario, which includes all existing and proposed new airports assuming no physical or environmental capacity constraints. Aviation Task Force Since the 1998 RTP did not fully resolve regional aviation issues, an Aviation Task Force was formed to evaluate additional scenarios and provide further policy direction to the Regional Council. The Aviation Task Force was comprised of elected officials, airport managers, aviation industry representatives, and public agency and organization representatives. The Aviation Task Force defined and evaluated a total of nine new aviation system scenarios over a two-year period. During the first two months of 2000, the group selected four of these for further analysis, including the adopted RTP Baseline Scenario, which served as the baseline for the study. These four scenarios, which were all recommended to SCAG's Transportation Committee for possible inclusion in the 2001 RTP, are described below. ♦ Adopted RTP (Baseline) — The 1998 RTP adopted scenario addressed the policy issue of determining regional air passenger demand with all airports unconstrained and no high-speed rail (HSR) system. This scenario was used as a basis for comparing impacts from alternative scenarios on the regional aviation system. ♦ Scenario 2 — This scenario addresses the policy issue of how high-speed rail connections (based on the Maglev Task Force's proposed alignments) would affect Southem Califomia Association of Govemments t 19 MOVING FORWARD •• DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Ontario Airport and other Inland Empire airports' ability to meet future demand. LAX would be constrained to 70 million annual passengers (MAP) under this scenario. Scenario 2 assumes the imp'lementation'of market incentives to boost demand at emerging airports. Scenario 8 — This scenario addresses the policy issue of how the development of a commercial airport at El Toro (along with HSR and market incentives as in Scenario 2) would affect regional aviation demand. LAX would be physically constrained to its existing capacity of 78 MAP. ♦ Scenario 9 Like Scenario 8, Scenario 9 primarily affects LAX and El Toro. Scenario 9 addresses the policy issue of how the LAX Master Plan expansion would affect the regional airport system without the development of El Toro (along with HSR and market incentives as in Scenario 2). SCAG staff performed a comparative environmental analysis on each scenario chosen by the Task Force, as well as an economic impact analysis. This provided a basis for comparing alternatives by their impacts on the region. It is important to note that all four scenarios will impose significant noise impacts on minority communities and will require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The resultant rankings are tabulated below: Ranking: 1=best, 4=worst Scenario 2 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 RTP Baseline Airport Ground Access 2 3 4 1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Airport Ground Access Air Quality Impact Analysis 2 3 4 1 (tons/day, 2020) Airport Ground Access Air Quality Impact Analysis 4 3 2 1 (million dollars/yr, 2020) Aircraft Operations Emissions Estimates (tons/day, 2020) ROG 1 2 3 4 co 1 2 3 4 Nox 2 3 1 4 Southern California Association of Governments 20 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Ranking: 1=best, 4=worst Scenario 2 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 RTP Baseline Total Sensitive Land Uses within Hypothetical Noise 2 3 4 1 Area (In acres, 2020) Distribution of Noise Impacts on Minority 2 3 4 14 Populations (Total # of Non -white Affected, 2020) 2020 SCAG Region Economy • Combined Economic Impacts (Dollar 3 2 4 Amount Stated in 1998 $ Millions) Implications and Options The RTP Medium (Baseline) Scenario assumes a totally unconstrained system and does not address the physical capacity constraints or the existing legally enforceable policy constraints at airports. Airports closely surrounded by urban development are spared capacity demands in this scenario mainly because of the inclusion of El Toro and an unconstrained LAX (which reaches well beyond its existing physical capacity). It would also have the highest level of emissions associated with aircraft operations of all of the selected scenarios. There is some inconsistency between the scenario evaluation results and the aviation policies adopted in the 1998 RTP. The most obvious inconsistency is between Scenario 9 and Policy #18, which calls for each county to provide environmentally - acceptable airport capacity within its own market to meet local, domestic air passenger demand. Scenario 9 eliminates the opportunity for Orange County to redress an acute shortfall in serving its own aviation demand by constructing a commercial airport at El Toro. The RTP Baseline Scenario would be less consistent than the others with RTP Aviation Policy #19, which calls for airports to be expanded and added to the system in a way that reinforces regional growth patterns and makes communities more livable. 4 Actual noise impacts of the baseline scenario may be understated. Southem Celifomla Association of Governments 21 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 These scenarios do not predict where airlines will choose to initiate service. Forecast demand at some airports examined may not reach a threshold that airlines need to justify investments in service. Furthermore, adoption of a preferred scenario for the 2001 RTP does not ensure that regional airport development will conform to this scenario. Does any of the four scenarios proposed completely address or are entirely compatible with all of the goals expressed by the adopted 1998 RTP polices and Guiding Principles? Or, could a combination or hybrid of various elements of these scenarios do this in a more satisfactory manner? Does that address the essential policy question, "Can we provide a more equitable distribution of regional air travel demand by providing limited or modest capacity increases at existing or proposed new airports in urban areas, while promoting the development of emerging new.airports in outlying areas?" How should the chosen scenario deal with the following issues? ♦ LAX expansion ♦ El Toro ♦ Ontario and John Wayne ♦ Burbank ♦ Palmdale and Inland Empire Analysis of the options determined that if existing capacity development at proposed urban airports, with the implementation of market incentives and high speed rail at emerging outlying airports, could raise demand at emerging airports enough to meet the critical threshold needed for airlines to initiate scheduled service. To implement an adopted regional aviation plan, new institutional arrangements would be needed, including enabling legislation. A new Regional Airport Planning Authority could be created with the legal authority to review and prioritize regional airports' improvement program fund -applications on a regional basis (similar to the Transportation Improvement Program process). The Authority would produce an annual Regional Airport Capital Improvement Plan (similar to the TIP) and a Regional Aviation System Plan (similar to the RTP) to be done every five years. Such an authority could also have indirect powers to work with other regional agencies in helping to plan and implement regional airport ground access systems, including high-speed rail. Detailed impact analysis will be performed for the four scenarios. Southem Cellfomla Assoclafion of Govemments 22 MOVING FORWARD —DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 VI. TRANSIT AND RAIL PROGRAMS Goals of the 1998 RTP When it adopted the 1998 RTP, SCAG's Regional Council directed staff to work with transit providers on how to best meet the objectives identified in the plan. At the time, costs to provide public transit bus service(s) were increasing exponentially while transit ridership was continuing to decline. The plan proposed that substantial service improvements and significant cost reductions could be achieved by implementing regional "Smart Shuttle" services (on -demand service supported by technology enhancements). The RTP projected that the 20-year savings from Smart Shuttle services and other transit system changes -could be as high as $2.65 billion. The 1998 RTP further assumed fully constrained funding for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA) commuter rail Capital Improvement Plan that would effectively double the carrying capacity of the regional Metrolink Service. Lastly, the 1998 RTP identified nine `Transit Corridors" for new or alternative project development. Most of these corridors were in Los Angeles County and were either part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority's (LACMTA) Red Line Minimum Operable Segments 3 and 4, or "light rail corridors" previously identified by the former Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. The remainder were urban and commuter rail corridors in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Issues The primary focus of the 1998 RTP's Transit Program was the cost and delivery of bus services in the region. It now appears that the assumed benefits of Smart Shuttles were overstated, and their applications somewhat limited. However, several fundamental transit policy questions warrant further discussion: ♦ How should this region continue to fund transit services? ♦ Should the primary focus of regional transit be to provide a "social safety net" level of service? Southem Cellfomla Association of Govemments 23 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 ♦ Are there other transit investment strategies that are more cost-effective and provide better service quality? Should these strategies be pursued if implementation would require changing the way transit funding is allocated and/or require significant changes to the existing institutional structures that fund, deliver and operate transit services? ♦ Should the Southern California region adopt a single alternative fuel standard for transit vehicles? Direction given by regional policy and decision makers will determine the future form function and role of transit services and how they should be pursued and implemented. Transit Corridor and Regional Transit Task Forces In response to the direction given by the Regional Council, and to address impacts of the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21), two task forces were established. The Transit Corridor Task Force (TCTF) was comprised of elected officials and staff from subregions, county transportation commissions, member cities and transit providers. The TCTF was convened to review and recommend projects for existing RTP identified corridors and recommend potential new transit corridors and projects. The task force identified a total of 43 projects on existing and new corridors. Proposed projects were identified and grouped into three primary areas: transitway (full grade separation), rapid bus (on existing arterials with smart street enhancement) and urban and commuter rail. Project sponsors were asked to identify whether their project was of primary or secondary importance, with the understanding that further prioritization would follow a regional financial analysis. All corridors and projects identified were consistent with the adopted 1998 RTP. The Regional Transit Task Force was convened to address the assumptions of the 1998 RTP and reevaluate regional transit. Their recommendations called for incremental goals, based on regional per capita ridership, that enhanced and restructured existing services. The Task Force identified actions to enhance transit service in three areas: Transit System Management (TSM), Transit Demand Management (TDM), and Growth Mitigation (GM). These actions, when implemented, will provide an attractive alternative to a single occupancy vehicle trip and help achieve regional goals by reducing congestion and delays. Southern California Association of Governments 24 MOVING FORWARD .- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 The Task Force analyzed a total of six ridership goal alternatives and narrowed them down to the following two: ♦ Maintenance —Maintain 1997 annual per capita ridership of 34.9 trips per person. Maintaining this modal penetration will result in a 38% increase in total transit ridership by 2020. ♦ Aggressive — Increase annual per capita ridership sufficiently to meet regional conformity, 72 trips per person annually. This equates to a 0 e Q90�y��a`60oc0 yam atios to oMain 2020Ipertings 247% increase in total transit ridership by 2020. To implement either identified transit scenario, both new revenue sources and enhancement of existing sources are required. The Task Force realized that Increasing the regional transit fleet alone will not work, is not cost effective, and by itself, would not improve overall performance. Transit enhancement actions will improve system performance (TSM), person access (TDM), and coordination with Estimafed2020 Operating &Maldtehance.Costs IMCM0.Ventura , MSan-Bemardino �.: 4 dRiver'Mde Maintenance Enhanced: Grange . M'ios Ahgeles :. growth and development (GM). l' Implementation of these actions on selected transit corridors, adopted by the Transit Corridor Task Force, could significantly increase regional transit ridership. In some cases, these enhancements alone could be implemented for little or no cost (capital operating) and improve transit service capacity by as much as 15%. Clearly, more transit enhancements and investments are necessary to approach even the Maintenance scenario. or Southern Cellfomla Assoclatlon of Governments 25 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Implications and Options It is not an exaggeration to say that transit is the single most important component determining the success or failure of the RTP. No other component by itself can do as much to reduce VMT and meet transportation conformity. Put another way, failure to meet the transit ridership goals set by the Regional Transit Task Force -- at the least, to maintain current per capita ridership -- would increase congestion on our road network and put the region even farther out of reach of conformity goals. In summary, transit represents a vital component of our transportation network, no matter what policy decisions and directions are adopted: Transit operators must be able to develop and maintain service(s) that attract users. At a minimum the development philosophy should provide services that are: ♦ available for use when the customers (riders) want to use them; ♦ accessible by customers without major obstacles (physical, institutional or informational); and ♦ planned from the customer's point of view. To develop attractive regional service(s), a number of improvement actions can be considered. To facilitate discussion, these actions are grouped as Transit System Management Actions, Transit Demand Management Actions, Growth Management Actions and Institutional Actions, though some may have applications in more than one category. 1. Transit Service Management (TSM): ♦ Transit schedule adherence needs to be enforced. At a minimum buses should arrive no later than 5 minutes after the time published, 90 per cent of the time. Where this is not practical, realistic schedules should be published. ♦ Bus stops should be physically adequate to accommodate passenger access and egress and to minimize auto/bus conflicts (even if this means removal of parking), and should be free of pedestrian impediments. ♦ All regional transit vehicles should be equipped with Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology (see Chapter X). ♦ Bus priority service (transitway or rapid bus) should be implemented concurrently with smart street technology. Southern California Association of Governments 26 MOVING FORWARD —DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 ♦ On corridors or arterials that are used by multiple operators, all service should be "open door." ♦ Transit corridor service(s) should "force feed" the urban rail and commuter rail systems. ♦ Local transit services should be restructured or re -deployed to prioritize collector and distributor functions to support transit corridors and rail systems. ♦ A single fare medium should be required. ♦ User -side subsidies should be implemented where service -side is too expensive or impractical. 2. Transit Demand Management (TDM): ♦ Differentiated transit fare (one-half fare off-peak) should be mandated region -wide. ♦ Transfers should be free, or eliminated entirely (pay on boarding). ♦ Transit service should be provided free to users if the "social safety net" option is chosen. ♦ Employer -based incentives should be mandatory region -wide. 3. Growth Management (GM) Actions: ♦ Transit impact fees and transit mitigation actions should be mandatory parts of the planning, permitting, and zoning process. Proposed mitigation efforts should have the prior approval of affected transit providers. ♦ The California Environmental Quality Act could be amended to require new development to include transit mitigations that equal or exceed the area's mode split, and to make such transit mitigations enforceable commitments. ♦ Commercial and large regional shopping developments should be required to provide transit "front -door access." 4. Institutional Actions: ♦ Transit providers should support extension of existing supplemental sales taxes and development of revenue from sources other than taxes (e.g., VMT fees). ♦ Regional transit providers and municipal operators should be required to coordinate transit services where they cross jurisdictional boundaries. Southern Callf0mla Assoclallon of Govemments 27 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 VII. GOODS MOVEMENT AND TRUCK LANES Background As of the 1998 RTP, trade, transportation, and manufacturing supported about 45% of the region's employment. In 1994, surface freight volumes exceeded 100 million gross tons along the corridor extending to St. Louis, Chicago, and New York and over 40 million tons along the corridor between Southern California and Texas. Along these corridors, shipments over 800 miles in length are mainly carried by train, and shorter shipments by trucks, which also provide all local transport and pick-up and delivery functions within the region. By 2020, it is forecast that the number of trucks may exceed 40,000 per day on parts of Interstates 5, 10, 15, 105, 210, 405, 605, and 710 and State Routes 57, 60, and 91, straining highway'capacity. Total goods traffic is expected to grow by more than 30% during the same period. Goods Movement Advisory Committee The standing Goods Movement Advisory Committee, rather than a separate Task Force, addressed this area of the plan, and adopted the following unprioritized list of projects, focus areas, and needed studies: ♦ Truck Lanes ♦ Regional Railroad Grade Crossing Improvements ♦ Alameda Corridor ♦ Alameda Corridor East and Orangethorpe Corridor ♦ Aviation: Air Cargo and Ground Access Issues ♦ The 1-710 Gap Closure ♦ NAFTA ♦ Southwest Passage ♦ Improvement in Freight Movement Productivity (Extended Hours of Delivery) ♦ Subregional Freight Studies ♦ 2000 Air Quality Management Plan/Heavy Duty Diesel Emissions and Mitigation ♦ Clean Fuel Technologies for Goods Movement Southern California Association of Governments 28 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 ♦ Transportation Funding for Freight Movement ♦ Regional/Subregional Equity in Funding/Project Development Issues Dedicated truck lanes should be studied to see if they would provide the anticipated benefits, including lower emissions, fewer accidents, less congestion, and lower cost trucking operations. A key question is whether truckers will find the benefits worth the payment of tolls to defray the substantial construction costs. 2. Regional railroad grade crossing improvements have been identified as a need for some time, but further information is needed on their costs and benefits — for example, to freight railroads — before expenditures can be prioritized. Complicating this process are the differences between methodologies used in various studies to quantify delay and assess other benefits. 3. A separate issue is the feasibility of consolidating most Union Pacific (UP) freight traffic on the old UP Main Line and off the Alhambra Line west of Pomona on the Alameda Corridor East, so as to reduce grade separation capital requirements. 4. Without sufficient room to handle air cargo, the SCAG region could lose a lucrative segment of commerce to other regions. The region needs to provide adequate capacity and reliability for trucks used in ground access, and needs to decide whether air cargo will be concentrated at LAX or moved to outlying areas. 5. Environmental and construction impacts on the City of South Pasadena are at the core of an on -going debate on whether to close the gap in Interstate 710. Even if the gap is closed, trucks are banned from using it. Hence, this major transportation investment would be of little value to goods movement. 6. With respect to The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a major issue is the safety, environmental, and labor impacts of cross -border truck traffic. 7. The major issue relating to the Southwest Passage is how to fund and implement the necessary capacity, safety, and environmental improvements necessary to implement this important multi -state and international trade corridor. Southern California Association of Governments 29 MOVING FORWARD —DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 8. Local air quality management plans call for heavy duty diesel emission reductions, among other steps to meet air quality standards. The major issues relating to diesel emissions are health impacts of particulates from engine exhaust and the availability and cost of low -sulfur diesel fuel. 9. New or hybrid truck power plants required by clean fuels programs for goods movement could increase costs and weight, take up too much space on the trucks, and increase the difficulty of maintaining the vehicles. The cost of these new systems could be a burden to small trucking companies and owner -operators. Also, specialized fueling and maintenance facilities would be needed. 10. Since the SCAG region is a national gateway for cargo to and from the Pacific Rim, elimination of delays and bottlenecks impacting goods movement in this region is in the national interest. A major issue here is how to develop adequate levels of federal funding to compensate the region for conveying goods to and from the rest of the country. 11.Another major funding issue is that subregions that experience heavy pass -through cargo movements need an equitable share of freight funding, so that they are not burdened with traffic congestion, environmental, and road repair impacts. Implications and Options Many highway improvements, such as adding lanes, intersection and ramp improvements, traffic light synchronization projects, and ITS projects, will benefit goods movement (trucks) as well as passenger vehicles and bus (transit) operations. Most of the rail line segments used by freight trains carry some passenger (Metrolink and Amtrak) trains also, and the predominantly passenger railroad lines also convey some rail freight. Hence, most railroad -highway grade crossing safety and grade separation projects will jointly benefit passenger and freight train movements. Many of these projects also benefit highway goods movement where trucks operate, and transit where buses cross rail lines. Consolidation of UP freight traffic along the Alameda Corridor East would benefit passenger rail development by potentially freeing up track time and track space on the parallel Alhambra Line for Metrolink service. Southern Callfomla Association of Governments 30 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Development of more effective rapid bus, busway, or urban rail transit corridors, and additional Metrolink service, can benefit truck movements by reducing some of the private passenger vehicles on parallel routes. (Notwithstanding this, truck lane projects may be the most effective way to reduce congestion impacts where truck volumes are substantial.) The following specific options are suggested: Construct dedicated truck lanes from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach via Interstates 710 and 15 and State Route 60 to the Inland Empire and High Desert, with a common pricing arrangement. Institute multiple payment options and user fees that are low enough to encourage use. 2. Conduct a regional grade crossing system study, across all corridors and all counties, using the same delay formula and the same methodology for evaluating safety and environmental improvements. 3. Focus spending first on low-cost grade crossing improvements, including use of new technologies; restrict grade separations to the most cost-effective locations. 4. Construct a railroad -railroad grade separation at Colton Crossing. This would be of the greatest benefit to freight train movement, since freight railroads do not restrict their train speed because of highway grade crossings. 5. Triple track the old UP main line and consolidate most freight traffic on the southerly route, i.e. fulfill the railroad merger recommendations. Grade separate only the highest -volume and most hazardous crossings on the Alhambra Line west, but implement all the recommended safety recommendations on that line segment. 6. Determine the costs to industry and to product delivery cost and price, of a major conversion of the trucking fleet to clean fuels. Consider a user fee on clean fuels so that tax revenues are not lost for transportation infrastructure work, and adoption of other incentives (rather than absence of a fuel tax) to promote clean fuels for goods movement. Work to promote low -sulfur diesel fuel at least in California and adjacent states if not nationwide. Southem Callfomia Assoclatlon of Govemments 31 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 7. Develop an equitable freight factor to facilitate obtaining new federal funds for cargo movement through our region with fewer impacts; and monitor where funds are expended for goods movement within the region to ensure that all of the subregions that are either impacted, or have economic development potential relating to goods movement, are fairly treated. 8. Modify the Interstate 710 gap closure project with four bored tunnels under South Pasadena to avoid neighborhood disruption and damage. Allow trucks to use the 710 project thus modified, so that 710-210 truck movements are possible, reducing the load on Interstate 5 and others. Use a toll on cars and trucks to pay for the additional cost of the bored tunnels beyond the cut -and -cover tunnel that Caltrans has said it can fund. 9. Develop new all -cargo airports on closed military bases; promote development of air -cargo and related industrial and handling facilities in the Inland Empire; and develop and implement plans to alleviate congestion impacting trucks serving cargo terminals. Southem Callfomla Association of Govemments 32 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 VIII. MAGLEV Goals of the 1998 RTP The Maglev program described in the 1998 RTP identified two constrained corridors which connected LAX to March Air Force Base and Palmdale Airport to Union Station, and Anaheim in Orange County to the City of San Bernardino. The 1998 RTP also identified future connections from San Bernardino to Victorville and to Palmdale via the High Desert corridor. A longer -range connection to the San Diego region was also included. Maglev Task Force The Maglev Task Force submitted a number of program recommendations to SCAG's Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC). These recommendations included the corridors previously adopted in the 1998 RTP, as well as a new corridor connecting LAX to Palmdale International Airport. The added corridor also included interim stops at the Van Nuys Airport and the City of Santa Clarita and a potential connection from the Van Nuys Airport to the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) facility in downtown Los Angeles. Preliminary results of the pre -construction planning work indicate that the LAX -to -March Inland Port corridor concept is feasible and could provide substantial congestion relief and air quality enhancement, but may cost more than initially believed. The projected system ridership should be sufficient to build, operate and transfer the project on a fully private, for -profit basis even with the potential of higher capital costs. The preliminary cost estimate for the new LAX -to -Palmdale corridor, which would add approximately 100 route miles to the existing constrained system, is $4.5 billion. The total system cost is estimated at $16 billion for the full 270-mile Maglev System. Southern California Association of Governments 33 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Implications and Options In the longer term, based upon the initial results from the LAX -to -March Corridor study, the Maglev program creates the basis for a 50-year regional surface transportation system that could offer a functional and practical transportation alternative that is as significant to this region as the freeway network developed during the last 50 years. In addition to connecting the widely dispersed portions of the region, Maglev technology could be applied to systems that connect specific regional activity centers and multi - modal transportation facilities such as major and regional airport facilities and rail stations. The following actions are recommended: 1. Complete and submit the project description to the Federal Railroad Administration as required under Phase 2 of Section 1218 Maglev Deployment guidelines. 2. Coordinate with state and federal agencies to secure funding for Phase 3 of Section 1218 Maglev Deployment Program. 3. Coordinate with state and federal agencies to secure funding to begin the pre - construction study for Line 2, connecting Palmdale-LAUPT-Orange County -San Bernardino -Ontario Airport. 4. Conduct sensitivity analysis on the corridors identified as part of the High Speed Ground Access Program. 5. Coordinate and integrate, where practical, with the California High Speed Rail Authority's proposed Inter -City High Speed Rail Program. Southem Califomia Association of Govemments 34 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 Judy 2000 California MAGLEV Existing Passenger Rail Lines and Alignment Alternatives for MAGLEV Corridors •�.... A. • «.. �+- -.� sue...., ...�: a' o .. F] S''j'„�--•-� ...,..i, r f%r:5 ...•. G �..� ,.y .w�... �... _ SAP .mardlno`✓ �y .�^�...s tea• _ . ..,,. iF:.'---�' mil••►,e w bM4. `••� � _ n,-«. �n.,� .,,... _...., v �i -- LAX v..�u.u.......... . yq. .`....n•.•.� 1AIGLEVL"g Regional MAGLEV High Speed Rail Plan Palmdale 1.AK-Union Station Unlon Slatlon-Graado Tn.uh Lagend Roane a1V6n Rana h6'km �... �....• Maho Redllar StaBm l6utrxap ��t-y--i--J--,--", M 2i155 E•1 49RB �•••�••••� Mebo Bko LLe Station NAM Rai) A-2 21M - EQ 4W4 O...e••••G McOo Gtaen Len 9ahxt (lgMPaq B 16f5 - Ed 46l14 •••• O-^ maudink Statfab C is= - E{ 45R3 0... 0••••0 Pasadena Blue Lino Slade Might FtA r� 61 2Wn - Fi 40164 latlaontuMtdkaO Y W 19131 - F2 40164 OnbrN-Mach - G - H-2 421W 43M RegionalM ULVandO uo g�NgnSpwaRNtagena 31150 O Polnhal Steeau _ •i-M�. SCASoada System1.2� 2S7/0 •3(-96-N• Catilanla Heh Speed ReiAOWMtygpn 4 Sym s - - K W47 •�•�-�• !A%?almAale lCannedalo UNon Slatlan) �-!-._�_ .� - L 2940 PARSONS TRANSPORTATION CIROYP Southem Caldomia Association of Govemments 35 MOVING FORWARD •• DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 IX. HIGHWAYS AND ARTERIALS Goals of the 1998 RTP The 1998 RTP contained over $9 billion in highway and arterial improvement projects in addition to already committed or programmed projects. This figure includes all capital improvements proposed on the highway and arterial network, including mixed flow lanes, high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, interchanges, truck climbing lanes, truck lanes, and grade crossings. The 1998 RTP also proposed completing a number of High -Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane and toll lane projects. Proposed toll lane projects included completion of the State Route (SR) 73 San Joaquin Hills Corridor, completion of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Routes 241, 261, and 133), the Foothill Transportation Corridor (SR- 241), the Corona -By -Pass project (extension of SR-71 from SR-91 to Interstate 15 at Cajalco Road), the Riverside -Orange County Transportation Corridor, and the San Bemardino-Riverside Transportation Corridor. Proposed HOT Lanes included SR-14 between Interstate 5 and L Avenue and continuation of toll lanes on Interstate 15 from Interstate 215 to Cajalco Road. In addition, feasibility studies for HOT Lanes were also proposed for SR-57 between SR-22 and Orange/Los Angeles County Line, and for continuation of HOT lanes on SR-91 to Interstate 15. All toll lane and HOT Lane projects were assumed to be fully privately funded in the 1998 RTP. RTP Technical Advisory Committee In the absence of a separate task force, the RTP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) guides the development of this component of the RTP. Subregions, County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) and other implementing agencies including Caltrans, port and airport authorities have also participated in the RTP Update process. Preliminary estimates indicate that they have identified arterial improvement needs totaling more than $50 billion, in addition to the projects that are already identified in the 1998 RTP. This unconstrained list is far beyond the available public funds in the region over the plan's time frame. Arterial and interchange improvements will be eligible for programming when future funding becomes available, subject to their performance Southem Celifomla Association of Govemments 36 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 relative to SCAG's performance indicators. The ultimate, financially constrained project list will pro.Pose ix b Ilio . in new expenditures for performance -based arterials in addition to funds already identified by CTCs and subregions. Implications and Options Our highway and arterial system carries the vast majority of trips that occur in our region, including automobiles, buses, vanpools, trucks, motorcycles, and even bicycles in some instances. In fact, 99% of all person trips, including trips on buses, occur on the highway and arterial network. Preliminary analysis indicates that if we were to do nothing beyond completing the committed projects in the 1998 RTIP, we could experience over a 240% increase in delay as a region by the year 2025. The average speed on our highway and arterial network could deteriorate from 32 miles per hour (mph) to less than 16 mph by the year 2025 during peak period. Another issue we need to consider in developing this component is the Govemor's Transportation Plan. The highway projects identified in the Governor's transportation plan can be viewed mostly as capacity enhancement projects. The plan devotes $765 million to highway -related projects, about 34% of the total spending proposed. The most notable of these are closures of HOV gaps on Interstates 405, 110, 5, and 215, and State Routes 91, 60, and 22. All of these projects are identified in the 1998 RTP as either baseline or constrained plan projects. Mixed flow, auxiliary lane, interchange improvement, and signal improvement projects are also proposed in the plan and consistent with the 1998 RTP. Strategic capacity improvements can be combined with improved management of the regional freeway system and peak period travel demand reduction strategies to effectively meet the region's travel needs. The region needs innovative capacity enhancements, but as always, innovations must meet a, benefit -cost test. The following options are based on input from the 1998 RTP, CTCs, and subregions: High -Occupancy Vehicle Lanes - Completion of the HOV system will be a significant step towards meeting future travel demand. Some HOV projects proposed in the 1998 RTP have been programmed in the current RTIP, with the remainder proposed for the 2001 RTP. Southern Celifomia Association of Govemments 37 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 2. HOV Connectors - HOV connectors are a vital element of the regional HOV system. A number of HOV connectors are identified in the 2020 Baseline. The 1998 RTP identified two additional HOV freeway -to -freeway connector projects. The connectors are constructed with drop ramps to the HOV lane along the freeway median to minimize weaving conflicts and maintain speeds. 3. Mixed Flow - Gaps in the freeway network create traffic bottlenecks during peak use. Several new mixed flow freeway lanes were proposed to close gaps, increase capacity in certain congested commuter corridors, and address county -to -county travel, especially from population -rich to employment -rich areas. Several routes are under consideration in the Four Corners area, where Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties converge. SCAG, Caltrans and Riverside County are exploring methods to approach new corridor development in an environmentally sensitive manner. Most of these projects are proposed for inclusion in the 2001 RTP. 4. Toll Lanes and High -Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes - Expand capacity on State Routes 91 and 71 to address north/south and east/west congestion in the Riverside - Orange County area. The existing toll lanes on State Route 91 should be extended eastward to Interstate 15, mitigating some of the heaviest peak period congestion in the region. The feasibility of a direct toll road link from Interstate 15 at Cajalco Pass to State Route 241 (Foothill Eastern Tollway) should be studied. This would connect the proposed HOT Lane extension on Interstate 15 between Interstate 215 and Cajalco Pass to State Route 241, providing an alternative access route between Orange and Riverside Counties. This connection would provide much -needed relief to the congestion on State Route 91 between Interstate 15 and Gypsum Canyon Road. However, this option would bisect the Cleveland National Forest and is likely to be highly unacceptable to local residents and environmental groups. Potential additional locations for HOT lanes are State Route 14 (Interstate 5 to Avenue L), Interstate 15 (Interstate 215 to Cajalco Road), State Route 57 (State Route 22 to LA/Orange County Lines and State Route 91 (Orange/Riverside County Line to Interstate 15). 8 The Board of the Orange County Transportation Authority voted against this option. Southem Califomia Association of Govemments M. MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 5. Arterials - Arterial roads account for over 65% of the total road network and already carry over 50% of total traffic. Since the likelihood of building new highways decreases by the year, maximizing the output of arterials is an attractive option to increase overall system capacity in already -developed areas. This plan proposes adding capacity on a number of strategic arterials identified by the CTCs and the subregions by adding lanes where feasible. Another innovative idea is known as the "super street" or the high -flow arterial concept, which involves converting two to four lanes in the middle of a roadway into limited -access highways by providing grade separation (overpasses) at critical high - volume intersections. The outer lanes provide service access to businesses and adjacent land uses. Converting a typical suburban arterial with signalized intersections to a super street could increase capacity by 50 to 70 percent at a cost of $3 to $4 million per mile. This is still less expensive than widening or building a new road. Southem Celifomia Assoclatlon of Govemments 39 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 K. OTHER STRATEGIES Non -Motorized Transportation Bicycle and pedestrian improvements help to fulfill the vision of Livable Communities and provide non -motorized linkages to activity centers. The region's bikeways encourage non -motorized commutes, serve as recreational facilities, and provide inexpensive, environment -friendly transportation opportunities. The region should continue to invest in bikeways and pedestrian facilities, by continuing to identify multiple funding sources. The subregions have requested approximately $500 million for non -motorized projects for the 2001 RTP (compared to $400 million over the plan period of the 1998 RTP). The goal of these expenditures should be to increase the mode split to at least 1.5 percent. The continuing development of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Bikeway Master plans should be supported, and individual cities and other counties should be encouraged to develop their own plans. Park -And -Ride System Park -and -ride systems allow commuters to park at a hub and transfer to a carpool or, in some cases, transit modes. Recent statutory and public policy shifts and the loss of Caltrans rideshare funding are thought to have adversely affected the capacity and utilization of the SCAG region's park -and -ride system. SCAG is currently cooperating with local governments, Metrolink, the local County Transportation Commissions, and Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12 on the Regional Park -and -Ride System Project. This project addresses issues such as: ♦ What new park -and -ride system responsibilities fall on local governments since the policy and statutory shifts of the 1990s? ♦ Will current funding sustain the existing park -and -ride system, and if not, how can local governments and Caltrans obtain the necessary funding? ♦ How can the park -and -ride system be positioned for dedicated funding in the future? Southem Califomia Association of Govemments 40 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Compared to other transportation infrastructure, commuter familiarity with the region's park -and -ride system is very low, thanks in part to a lack of funding for marketing and outreach. Additionally, the system's safety and security (and commuters' perceptions thereof) may need a major boost. Issues surrounding future funding of system operation and maintenance, as well as the development of new facilities, are unclear. An on -going mechanism to explore park - and -ride lot funding and to replace the ad -hoc park -and -ride committee may be necessary to assure that the region's facilities will continue to be fully integrated into the transportation planning and programming process. Intelligent Transportation Systems Today, applications of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies allow the monitoring of traffic conditions and the dynamic adjustment of traffic signals to reduce unnecessary delay, the automated collection of tolls, advanced detection and television cameras to detect, assess and respond to traffic accidents and incidents. In the future, ITS technologies will automate transit fare collection and parking payments, use vehicle location systems to track trains and buses to give users real time arrival and departure information and use onboard systems to detect and avoid collisions. One of four corridors of national significance identified for early ITS deployment by Congress under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the Southern California ITS Priority Corridor, includes the SCAG region and San Diego County. The ITS plan for this corridor includes major local elements developed by three public - private committees established by Congress, including LA -Ventura, Orange County and the Inland Empire. The plan coordinates architecture, standards, and institutional issues and provides the framework for deploying an integrated ITS system. The Regional Transportation Plan ITS components include a number of components and user services within current recommended actions: Completion of advanced traffic management of the region's freeways and certain arterial corridors, through traffic operations centers, signal synchronization; ramp meters and visual detection. Southem Callfomla Assoclaffon of Govemments 41 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Advanced Traveler Information Systems will provide real-time information to system users on traffic conditions, incidents, accidents, events, weather and alternative routes and modes. Advanced Traveler Information Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) provide household and business customers with information that they can use 24 hours a day to make current and future decisions regarding the most favorable means, route and time for work, recreational and other trips. For the immediate and future trip, the traveler can obtain up-to-the-minute information on freeway, tollway and street congestion; times and speeds for alternate trip origins and destinations; and shuttle, bus, rail, plane and ship schedules, connections and costs. In addition, information is available on traffic,accidents, incidents, alternative routes and weather. The information can be obtained in many ways: radio and television, specific traveler information telephone numbers, the Internet, kiosks in convenient public and work locations and in -vehicle devices. Information is available in different forms: verbally and visually, in text, tables and maps. Cities, counties, County Transportation Commissions, transit providers, subregional associations, Caltrans and private organizations are working together to develop data collection systems, to process the data through public and private transportation management centers, and to deliver the information to travelers. Through the Traveler Advisory News Network (TANN), the Southern California Economic Partnership (the Partnership) currently provides "real time" traffic information as part of the Orange County Model Deployment, a current Partnership demonstration project for ATIS. The system also provides data on traffic incidents, transit schedules, and itinerary planning. Through TANN affiliates, this data is available to digital communications "palm" devices, pagers, and in -vehicle devices, as well as through intemettintranet connections. Southem Caiifomia Association of Govemments 42 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 Ridesharing/Transportation Demand Management Strategies Several actions are recommended to obtain the maximum possible contribution from these important congestion management strategies. 1. Implement the following actions recommended in the 1998 RTP for carpooling, vanpooling, and telecommuting, which has not yet been done. ♦ Program funds in the RTIP to maintain the existing carpool market share and increase the number of carpoolers by 8,000 per year, with each county contributing its fair share according to an agreed -upon formula. ♦ Create a strong public -private partnership to increase the number of commuter vanpools from 2,000 to 5,000 through more effective marketing and the provision of non -monetary public sector incentives. ♦ Continue to support private provision of vanpool programs. ♦ Develop and implement pilot projects to test the concept of replacing low -performing express bus services with non -subsidized vanpools. ♦ Work with private and public organizations to develop programs that qualify for federal Environmental Protection Agency's implementation strategies. ♦ Support policies and programs that facilitate individuals and business employees to work at home. ♦ Support public policies, programs, legislation, ordinances, housing designs and building permits that enable and support self-employed and other private sector employees working at home. ♦ Pursue partnerships, agreements and marketing techniques that promote work at home and implementation of telecommunications opportunities that help to reduce travel demand. Southern Califomia Association of Governments 43 MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 2. Given the regional issue of mobile source emissions shortfalls, consideration should be given to reinstate Rule 2202 to include employers with 100-250 employees at the work site. 3. Pursue dedicated funding to maintain and expand park and ride facilities, maintain existing capacity and conduct regionwide marketing and public awareness programs. Electronic Workplaces and Electronic Commerce The revolution in communication and computing technology will create new opportunities for work, social, and economic activities to be carried out without the need for individuals to travel as they have historically done. The electronic workplace maybe at home, on a train, at a meeting, in the field, or at a satellite work facility. Computing and the Internet, visual and mobile communications technology will allow workers to adjust travel times and still maintain or increase productivity. Meetings, for instance, may be held through teleconferencing, reducing the need for many workers to travel, or reducing travel during peak periods. Reports and graphics may be prepared and sent for review electronically, reducing the need to transport those materials. Information technology also allows people to order goods and services on-line instead of making trips. A proliferation of e-commerce will increase consumer choice, without an increase in the propensity to travel to acquire those goods and services. Everything from entertainment, to office supplies, to groceries may be ordered reliably through electronic commerce, and delivered to home or work site. Quantification of the mobility and air quality benefits of such strategies is still preliminary. Early indicators of productivity, such as the number of orders to various services, and surveys of employees who use flexible schedules made possible by new technology, indicate changes in travel are likely. The RTP must begin to analyze and quantify these still emergent benefits as they develop. Trend analysis of the electronic information phenomenon should be possible using many commercial indices of electronic workplace and commerce activities. SCAG is currently developing a number of efforts aimed at tracking e-commerce and assessing the issues and likely benefits for mobility and air quality. Southern California Association of Governments 44 < MOVING FORWARD -- DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 III. NEXT STEPS IN THE PLAN REFINEMENT PROCESS In November 2000, the draft 2001 RTP will be presented to the TCC for approval to release the draft for public review. Before then, much of the analytical work will need to be performed in developing and refining the ultimate investment strategy for the 2001 RTP. Beginning in July 2000, several TCC workshops will be necessary to further refine and analyze the RTP alternative scenarios. In order to complete the analytical work, one of the first tasks for staff is to determine the base years and baseline' conditions. This determination is being completed as this document was being prepared. The baseline should include mobility conditions in terms of work trip travel time, average peak period speed for highway and transit, accessibility, safety, reliability, air quality and investment return on the baseline improvements. Based on input from the policy committees and the public outreach process, the options and recommendations described in this document will be refined and formulated into a number of alternatives for model runs. In the meantime, growth forecast numbers will need to be finalized to reflect local input. Based on the model results, performance analysis for each of the alternatives will be conducted. Performance analysis will include comparative benefit analysis in terms of mobility, accessibility, safety, reliability, air quality and cost-effectiveness. In addition, environmental justice analysis will need to be performed for the preferred altemative(s). To expedite the decision process, technical work related to alternative analyses will be presented directly to TCC. The following are some key milestones to be accomplished: July 6, 2000 RTP Decision Document 2000 to TCC August 3, 2000 Decision Document refinement/debate in TCC September 7, 2000 Final Debate on Decision Document in TCC November 2, 2000 Draft 2001 RTP to TCC December 7, 2000 Draft PER 2001 RTP to TCC January 5, 2001 End public comment on RTP 6 The base year is the most recent year for which data is available to validate SCAG's regional transportation model. It is used as the base year for all aspects of plan analysis. The baseline refers to all projects that are committed to in the current Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). Southem Callfomla Assoctatton of Govemments 45 MOVING FORWARD — DECISION DOCUMENT 2001 July 2000 i February 7, 2001 End public comment on PEIR March 1, 2001 Final Draft EIR and RTP to TCC April 5, 2001 RC Adopts 2001 RTP and PEIR The milestones depicted above represent a critical path to achieve adoption of the 2001 RTP by the Regional Council in April 2001. The schedule allows for two months (July and August) to complete all of the analytical work, including model runs, performance analysis, environmental justice analysis, project costs, etc. The months of September and October will be devoted to preparing the Draft RTP. Southern California Association of Governments m TO DATE p Accounts Payabd p HarborResources Administrative Services p Human Resources p Building p Mayor p CityAttomey p M.I.S. p City Clerk p Pa II p City Manager arming p City Manager, Assistant p Police pCltyManager, Deputy pPublicWorks/Engineering p CommunityServices p Public Works/Utilities p Fire p Revenue p General Services FROM y DEFT. ❑ ACTION ❑ AS RE ESTED ❑ REVIEW ORMATION ❑ COMMENT ❑ FILE ❑ SIGNATURE ❑ RETURN NO.417 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS March 1, 2001 MINUTES THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE REGIONAL COUNCIL. AUDIOCASSETTE TAPE OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG'S OFFICE. The Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments held it meeting at SCAG Offices. The meeting was called to order by President Ron Bates, Councilmember, City of Los Alamitos. There was a quorum. 1.0 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by President Bates, Councilmember, City of Alamitos. • CELEBRATION FOR MAYOR BOB BARTLETT Maybr Bob Bartlett announced that he would not seek re-election of his mayoral seat for the City of Monrovia. President Bates presented him with an award recognizing his service as a Regional Council member. 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Ron Milam, L.A. County Bicycle Coalition; Don Kornreich, Laguna Woods Private Citizen; and Jim Stewart, So. California Council on Environment presented comments regarding the Regional Transportation Plan. 3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Approval Items The consent calendar items were MOVED (Brown), SECONDED (Judy Mikels) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 3.1.1 Approval of February 1 2001 Minutes 3.1.2 Report from Subcommittee on Contracts New Contracts • Foothill Transit 3.1.3 Contracts & Purchase Orders ($5,000 - $25,000) Information Only • Ruvim Kaliko • 308 Systems • PB Farradyne, Inc. • ACT Consulting Engineering, Inc. • City of Monrovia City Manager • Dell Computers • Dell Computers • Hummingbird • Reaume Companies, SW 4.0 ACTION ITEMS 4.1 Administration Committee Report 4.1.1 Recommendations from the Membership Task Force The Membership Task Force forwarded several recommendations to the Administration Committee and Regional Council for approval. They are: (1) An Outreach Program to cities and counties; (2) A member dues increase with an annual Consumer Price Index adjustment with a minimum increase of I % effective July 1, 2001; (3) A policy on legislative advocacy delegations; (4) A report on strategies to increase SCAG's working capital; and (5) send a letter to each city manager with a report on strategies, Best Practices and the dues increase. It was MOVED (Perry), SECONDED (Brown) and OPPOSED (Bruesch) to approve the recommendations and forward recommendations to the General Assembly for consideration. 4.1.2 Fiscal Year 2001-2001 Budget Issues Priorities Each year, the first step in development of the annual Budget is to establish priorities based on ranking a set of Budget issues. Budget issues are major regional planning challenges, opportunities and the initiatives that would address those challenges and opportunities. SCAG's Subregiontd/Regional Relations Task Force reviewed a set of Budget Issues for the fiscal year 2001-2002. SCAG Regional Council members, Subregional Coordinators and SCAG Management ranked the following on a scale of high, medium or low priority: #1 Transportation Financing; #2 Aviation and Growth Visioning; #3 Goods Movement, Housing and Air Quality; #4 Transportation System Performance; #5 Regional Planning Data and Information Services; #6 Transportation System Technology and Water Supply and Quality; #7 Environmental Sustainability and Transit System Performance; #8 Best Practices Implementation; and #9 Economic and Human Resources Development. It was MOVED (Perry), SECONDED (Dixon) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED to approve the priorities. 4.1.3 2002 Federal Congressional Appropriations 4.1.4 It was MOVED (Perry), SECONDED (Young) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED to approve the 2001 Federal Congressional Appropriations. Systems (PERS) It was MOVED (Perry), SECONDED (Lowe) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED to approve the implement the paying & reporting of employee paid member contribution as compensation to (PERS). 4.1.5 Hamilton. Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc.(HRA) It was MOVED (Perry), SECONDED (Shaw) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED to approve the HRA contract in the amount of $54,5000 to conduct search for Deputy Executive Director. A job description of the Deputy Executive Director will be provided to the Regional Council. 4.2 Transportation & Communications Committee (TCC) Report 4.2.1 Report on Private Sector Summit Meetings Tabled 4.2.1 Update on joint TCC/EEC workshop The joint meeting was held on February 21, 2001, to discuss the results of the 2001 RTP Update Program Environmental Impact Report including aviation. This was an information item. 4.3 Energy -and Environment Committee (EEC) Report 4.3.1 South Defense Alliance —Resolution 01-416-3 It was MOVED (Judy Mikels), SECONDED (Perry) and UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED to support Resolution 01-416-3 for U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton and receive & file the report. 4.4 4.3.2 Calfed Bay -Delta Program A report on the status of the statewide water usage was presented. The Energy & Environment adopted a resolution of support for the Program in February. However in considering the item, the EC noted that support would be limited to increased federal funding for the program and not specific project support. It was MOVED (Young), SECONDED (Brown) and UNANIMOULSY APPROVED to approve the resolution. 4.4.1 Housing Southern California; A Decade in Review Mayor Hardison, Chair, stated that the draft report provides a description and analysis of housing trends between 1990 and 2000 in the SCAG region. During this tine period there have been remarkable changes in the economy of the region, which are reflected in the housing market. The new economy has types of jobs, which did not exist a decade ago, and a whole engineering industry has been reduced significantly in size. The CEHD recommended that the Regional Council approve the draft report. It was MOVED (Hardison), SECONDED (Bartlett) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 4.5 Communications Task Force 4.5.1 Status Report Councilmember Perry reported that the Communications Task Force discussed the following: (1) Ways to coordinate and maximize legislative advocacy activities; (2) A new approach regarding orientation of new RC members to SCAG; (3) Development of a master calendar on SCAG's web site incorporating key meeting dates of sister organizations as well as SCAG's subregions. In addition Councilmember Perry stated that the Task Force determined to not to have a special SCAG legislative briefing in conjunction with the National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference. However staff will provide RC members with briefings on SCAG's legislative priorities as well as a list of targeted Congressional representatives. 000005 4.6 Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee Report Councilmember Dixon, Chair, gave an update on current on -going ADR projects. He state that Supervisor Yaroslaysky requested ADR services in facilitating a land use/zoning conflict which impacts road traffic in the Lobo Canyon/Triunfo Canyon area of L.A. County. The I-210 Corridor— City Based Mediation Project in the cities of Azusa, Glendale and Monrovia is moving forward. Also the Malibu Lagoon facilitation is ongoing. Their task force has asked for more funding to continue the process. It was agreed to authorize additional support up to $5,000 contingent on that the task force contributing a match. ADR training is being offered again to interested subregions. The training is for elected officials, appropriate city commission and board members including key city staff. The training is a 3-day time commitment for participants and is no cost to the cities or subregions. 5.0 REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Frank Osgood, Chair, stated that the RAC's discussed the Regional Transportation Plan. Next month the RAC will bring recommendations to the Regional Council and the selection of nominees for the 18a' Donald G. Hagman Award. 6.0 INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Monthly Financial Report Report presented by Bert Becker regarding cash flow and financial status to date. . 6.2 Report on Best Practices Becker reported on Best Practices recommendations that were completed and status of recommendations that were not completed.. 6.3 Update on Inter -regional Partnership Grant Applications The Regional Council authorized staff at the December meeting to submit grant applications. Staff reported on SCAG's partnering with several subregions in application for monies through the State HCD to address housing imbalances in the region. �Otltf� 7.0 7.1 2000 Nominating Committee Report Supervisor Judy Mikels, Chair, reported that the 2000 Nominating Committee selected Supervisor Jon Mikels, County of San Bernardino as 1" Vice President replacing Sup. Kathy Davis, County of San Bernardino It was MOVED (Judy Mikels), SECONDED (Lowe) and UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 7.2 • Executive Director's Mid Year Evaluation The Executive Director's evaluation will beseported to the Regional Council at the April meeting. 7.3 Financial Summit held on February 16, 2001 President Bates gave a brief report on the Financial Summit held on February 16, 2001. 7.4 Anaointments RC District Election Results - North County — Jo Anne Darcy, Santa Clarita, District #43 SGV COG —Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel, District 35 (New RC) Tom Sykes, Walnut, District 37 (New RC) South Bay Cities — Sandra Jacobs, El Segundo, District #37 (New RC) SANBAG - Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga, District #9 Ventura COG - Toni Young, Port Hueneme, District #45 Term of office commences at close of 2001 General Assembly RC members to Policy Committee TCC: Tom Sykes, Walnut 2001 Nominating Committee Marcine Shaw, Compton, replacing Bob Bartlett Maglev Task Force Chris Christiansen, West Covina, Chair 000007 7.0 LEGAL COUNSEL 7.1 Litigation — Closed Session • Pursuant to Government Code Section §54956.9(a) City of Moreno Valley v. SCAG et_al, and City of Oxnard v. SCAG and HCD • Pursuant to Government Code Section §5.4956.9(h) Potential Litigation Regional Council reconvened at 2:05 p.m. It was MOVED, SECONDED and APPROVED to sue the State HCD only if negotiations to reduce allocation fail. 8.0 ADJOURNMENT There being no futher business the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p:m. L Mark Pisano, Executive Director 11111-'' Staff Present Mark Pisano, Executive Director Bert Becker, Chief Financial Officer Helene Smookler, Legal Counsel Colin Lennard, General Counsel Jim Gosnell, Director, Planning & Policy Jim Sims, Director, Information Services Carol Przybycien, SCAG Staff Zahi Faranesh, SCAG Staff Patrick Clarke, SCAG Staff Shelia Stewart, Executive Assistant Members Present Councilmember Ron Bates (Los Alamitos), President, Delegate, District 20 Councilmember Hal Bernson (Los Angeles), 2"d V.P., Delegate, District 59 Supervisor Bob Buster (Riverside), Delegate, County of Riverside Supervisor Judy Mikels (Ventura), Delegate, County of Ventura Supervisor Jon Mikels (San Bernardino), Delegate, County of San Bernardino Supervisor Charles Smith (Orange), Delegate, County of Orange Councilmember Charles White (Moreno Valley), Delegate, District 3 Councilmember Ron Roberts (Temecula) Delegate, District 5 Councilmember Lee Ann Garcia (Grand Terrace) Delegate, District 6 Mayor Judith Valles (San Bernardino) Delegate, District 7 Mayor Bill Alexander (Rancho Cucamonga), Delegate, District 9 Councilmember Cathryn DeYoung (Laguna Niguel) Delegate, District 12 Councilmember Richard Dixon (Lake Forest), Delegate, District 13 Councilmember Alta Duke (La Palma) Delegate, District 18 Councilmember Shirley McCracken (Anaheim) Delegate, District 19 Councilmember Art Brown (Buena Park), Delegate, District 21 Councilmember Bev Petry (Brea), Delegate, District 22 Councilmember Bruce Barrows (Cerritos) Delegate, District 23 Councilmember Gene Daniels (Paramount) Delegate, District 24 Mayor Pro Tern Marcine Shaw (Compton), Delegate, District 26 Councilmember George Bass (Bell), Delegate, District 27 Councilmember Lawrence Kirkley (Inglewood), Delegate, District 28 Councilmember Ray Grabinski (Long Beach), District 29 Councilmember Robert Bruesch (Rosemead), Delegate, District 32 Councilmember Paul Talbot (Alhambra) Delegate, District 34 Mayor Bob Bartlett (Monrovia), Delegate, District 35 Mayor Karen Rosenthal (Claremont), Delegate, District 38 Mayor Dee Hardison Torrance), Delegate, District 39 Councilmember Bob Pinzler (Redondo Beach) Delegate, District 40 Councilmember Pam O'Connor (Santa Monica) Delegate, District 41 Councilmember Jo Anne Darcy (Santa Clarlta), Delegate, District 43 Councilmember Dennis Washburn (Calabasas) Delegate, District 44 Councilmember Toni Young (Port Hueneme) Delegate, District 45 Councilmember Glen Becerra (Simi Valley), Delegate, District 46 Councilmember Mike Hernandez (Los Angeles), Delegate, District 48 Councilmember Ralph Bauer (Huntington Beach) Delegate, District 64 00000a CTC Representatives Councilmember Robin Lowe, Hemet, representing RCTC. Others Present Frank Osgood M.J. "Mac" Dube Frank Hotchkiss Phyllis Winger Darrell Powell Jeff Davis Eyvonne Sells Sandra Balmir Jose Andrade Lou Bone Rick Bishop Lauree Aragona Chris Barnes Melinda Bowman Dan Rawlins NikiTenndur Cecil Carpio Catherin Mc Millan Jeff Lustgarten Chair, RAC Councilmember Twentynine Palms Urban Possibility Councilman Bernson's Staff City of Los Angeles Caltrans SCAQMD FTA/FHWA Resident of Los Angeles City of Tustin WRCOG Mayor, La Palma Councilmember, La Palma Orange County Cerrell & Associates Councilmember Galenter's Office City of Inglewood CVAG Cerrell & Associates 0000110 M DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 Aviation and Aviation Ground Access V. Strategic Investments With the region becoming an even greater international gateway, there will be an increase in the number of air passengers, as well as goods, coming into (and out of) Southern California. The year 2025 may see the arrival or departure of more than 172 million passengers annually, up from the 80 million recorded in 1999 (see Figure 5.6). At the same time, air cargo demand is expected to reach 9.5 million tons. Not only will these increases require greater capacity in the airport system, but they will also impact roads near the airports. Domestic and international air travel and air cargo will play an increasingly important role in the region's economic growth. Additionally, general aviation airports will play an increasing role in relieving congestion at capacity constrained airports. The 2025 air passenger forecasts and allocations to airports encompass a range of 164 to 172 million annual passengers depending upon assumptions tested. The 1998 RTP, when forecasted to 2025, indicates a regional demand of 172 million annual passengers. The capacity of kp- existing urbanized commercial arport� system (excluding Pa1m,Spniigs and foJer military air bases) is 1 stimate�� a l0 million annual Dasseneers.SWith�ut•airp rt development, the s; passenger capacity by 2025. Figure 5.6 Aviation Passenger Demand 157* 172* 1997 2020 2026 Over the same period offime`, aii, Argo is II *Source: 1998 Adopted Plan expected to grow from 2.6 million annual tons in 1997 to 9.5 mijlion annual tons in 2025. This cargo growth rate is almost double the passenger growth rate and reflects actual increases since 1992 and expected increases in Pacific Rim air cargo activity. Aviation System Investments — Four Scenarios The growth in air passenger and air cargo demand requires the judicious expansion of existing commercial service airports and the development of former military air bases if the economic benefits of air commerce are to be fully captured by the region. Several military air bases were closed in the 1990s, allowing the region the opportunity to develop the additional airport capacity. These closed air bases include El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, March Global Port, San Bernardino International Airport and Southern California Logistics Airport. Joint -use facilities include Palmdale Regional Airport and (potentially) Point Mugu. The potential adverse impacts of airport expansion require the consideration of regional strategies and policies to decentralize aviation demand and provide an equitable distribution of regional aviation facilities. In addition, the expansion of existing airports and development of former military air bases should take into account the impacts of population and job k 1J Southern California Association of Governments 87 The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments growth in the region so that regional trip making is reduced and community impacts are minimized. Since the 1998 RTP did not fully resolve some regional aviation issues, an Aviation Task Force consisting of elected officials and aviation industry professionals was formed to develop and evaluate additional scenarios and provide further policy direction to the Regional Council. Four main policy questions were analyzed: ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand by assuming physical other urbanized airports? ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand by developing military bases as commercial airports? � � r ➢ Can we decentralize aviation demand airports? 11*-� ➢ Can we decentralize Inland Empire airgo. Over a two-year per system scenarios. h RTP Environmental rail trraints at LAX and Jlor other former kages between at Pahndale and the ;e define'd.and evaluated nine new aviation .os Were selected for further analysis in the the 1998 RTP. The 1998 RTP Scenarit (*v i* §curio) is a placeholder pending review of the RTP Environmental hnpact epo� arld,the selection of a preferred alternative. In this scenario all airports are unconstrained and assumed to be able to expand to meet demand. There are no high speed rail linkai�pbtween airports and no market incentives for Palmdale or Inland Empire Airports. The regional aviation demand is forecast to be 157 million annual passengers (MAP) in 2020 and 172 MAP in 2025. Scenario Two examines the question, "Can Ontario, El Toro, Palmdale and the Inland Empire airports meet the majority of future demand?" LAX is constrained to 70 MAP, Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their,physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. The term "high speed rail' assumes linkages between airports along the corridor chosen by the Maglev Task Force. The term "market incentives" assumes free parking, free transit to airport from population centers, roadway improvements at Palmdale and Southern California Logistics and full awareness of airports as airport choice options by passengers. In this scenario, regional aviation demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 166 MAP in 2025. S Southern California The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder dssociatron of Governments 88 pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments Scenario Eight is similar to Scenario Two except that LAX is constrained to its estimated physical capacity of 78 MAP. Regional demand is estimated at 156 MAP in 2020 and 167 MAP in 2025. Scenario Nine examines the impact of expanding LAX (City of Los Angeles Mayor Riordan's preferred alternative). In this scenario, LAX is constrained to the physical capacity of the improvements (estimated at 86 MAP), with no El Toro. Burbank, John Wayne and Long Beach are all constrained to their physical or legal capacity. High speed rail and market incentives for Palmdale and Inland Empire airports are assumed. Regional aviation demand in this scenario is estimated at 155 MAP in 2020 and 164 MAP in 2025. Table 5. 17 provides a comparative overview of the distribution in the number of annual passengers between the regional airports as projected for each ct:nario(( Tnhlp 5.17 Comparativet Overview Distribution between Airportsof Scenario Year BUR ELT L'GB� MAFI'+ NTi PSP" PMd MUG S8D SCI Intent HSR Totals 1997 5 n/a59 ',;T nia l6 S 1 <1 nia n/a n/a n1a me 80 1998 2020 9 2294 i 3 �'5 2 <t 2 r2 <1 157 INILAX No No Adopted Plan 2025 9 25J63 3/ 11 . 17 : 2 <1 2 2 <1 172 202s s" 2s' TO- 3' F2 r -22' z 1 3 1 <1 156 Scenario Yes Yes 2 2025 9' 29' 8 70" - l3' 112 34 2 1 3 2 1 166 scenario 12020 9' 1 25 11 8" * i 3"� 1 26 2 1 me 1 1 Yes Yes 156 8 2025 9" /8" 7l 3' 2 30 3 2 nia 2 1 167 Scenario 2020 9" 1Ja 8 r 86• 3' 5 34 3 1 n/a 3 1 Yes Yes 155 9 2025 9 p121 1/l8• 86' 3' 7 38 4 2 1 n1a 5 2 164 " indicates airport contra BUR = Burbank ELT = El Toro SNA = John Wayne LAX = Los Angeles Intl LGB = Long Beach MAR = March Global Port ONT = Ontario PSP = Palm Springs PLM = Palmdale MUG = Point Mugu SBD = San Bernardino Intl SCI = Southern Intent = Market Incentives HSR = High Speed Rail Cah/omia Logistics t�; Southern California The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholder .Association of Governments 89 pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments Adoption of a Preferred Scenario The completion of the analysis of the selected scenarios is expected by Spring 2001 and the recommendation of a preferred aviation scenario for the 2001 RTP Update should occur at that time. The adoption of a preferred scenario for the 2001 RTP Update does not ensure that regional airport development will conform to this scenario because none of these scenarios can predict where airlines will actually choose to initiate service. 'Forecast demand at some airports may not reach the threshold needed by airlines to justify investments in service. Creative implementation strategies may be necessary to achieve a minimum levelof operational efficiency that may be economically attractive to airlines. These strategie may include proceeding with expansion within existing capacity limits at proposed utb n airports to meet local demand, coupled with the implementation of market jric tines an_ d high speed rail linkages to emerging airports. } f 7,,-,, A regional aviation plan, structured as a airport development with surface tra> p regional aviation plan, new institutional' implementation of an approved >fegional authority. The recently revived Sou�lieh potentially function "s enll. 6u similar entity, could be jesponsi le fb rd be delineated in the reeionalaviatioupk of theIRT , is ndc a ssaryto coordinate -lopme'nt.o implement an adopted is may, be needed. jibe authority for the ,n could rest withal) regional airport tg egioi�al Airport Authority could titia Itlegional Airport Authority, or a Aregional airport development as would ➢ Provide for rediorlZoliib 4 df the economic development opportunities and job growth created by the prospget of significant growth in air traffic in the region between now and 2025. IV/ ➢ Reflect environmental, environmental justice and local quality of life constraints at existing airports that operate in built -out urban environments. ➢ Distribute maximum opportunity to Southern California airports where population and job growth over the next two decades are expected to be strong and where local communities desire the air traffic for economic development reasons. ➢ Reflect that each county should have both the obligation and the opportunity to meet its own air traffic needs where feasible. ACTION— Support the expansion of capacity at major existing and potential regional airports to handle anticipated increases in both passenger and cargo volume. ACTION —Mitigate the effects of expanding existing airports and consider the reuse of military air bases so that community impacts are minimized. 'I_ Southern California The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholdcr Association of Governments 90 pending review of impact analyses and selection DRAFT 2001 RTP Update December 2000 V. Strategic Investments ACTION— Maximize air passenger and air cargo utilization of outlying airports in less populated areas. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The potential state of TDM in 2025 depends largely on the level of funding as well as social and institutional commitments. If we were to do nothing beyond the baseline, it is unlikely that we can even sustain the current level of ridesharing, telecommuting and work -at-home, let alone expanding them over the 2001 RTP Update period. While the Aotal number of HOV lane users could increase due to absolute increase in population/ employment and a more complete HOV lane network, it is unlikely that the number oEvanpools will increase significantly beyond its current level. Recommended Investments in TDM Regionally, we must sustain the carpooling rate translates into m surface streets daily, which in to of travel. Key ➢ Program ft number of a one percent drop in the amour freeways and )2 tmillion vehicle miles are: the existing carpool market and increase the ➢ Pursue dedicated'fim 4 ingfor education and outreach to the general public to increase awareness of land'uajhicipation in the regional rideshare program. ➢ Given the regional issue of mobile source emissions shortfalls, consider reinstating Rule 2202 to include employers with less than 250 employees at the work site. ACTION— Support the maintenance of the existing carpool market share and an increase in carpooling. ACTION— Continue to support funding for education and outreach to the general public in order to increase awareness and participation in carpooling and vanpooling. Vanpools Vanpooling is considered one of the most cost-effective TDM strategies for long-distance commuters. The effectiveness of vanpooling is based on its ability to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel. Within the SCAG region, there are over 2,000 vanpools in operation, carrying an average of 10 riders and travelling approximately 35 miles per one-way trip. k,,/ Southern Caltjomia y`I Association ojCavernments 91 The 98 RTP adopted scenario is a placeholdcr pending review of impact analyses and selection CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Resource Management • Fiscal Services • M.I.S. • Revenue -Accounting DATE: May 30, 2000 TO: Homer Bludau, City Manager FROM: Dan Matusiewicz, Accounting Manager RE: Airport Grantees Test Work SUMMARY 1. Upon the City Managers request, Airport Grants were reviewed and grant expenditures were subjected to certain limited test work procedures by Administrative Services staff. 2. Initial fieldwork was performed at the grantees' premises by Administrative Services staff but the results were compiled and much of the supporting work papers were generated at City Hall. All grantees graciously cooperated with the fieldwork procedures. 3. Several findings, disclosures and recommendations were made that we believe will enhance the effectiveness of the City's grant monitoring abilities. The findings, disclosures, and recommendations are explained in this report and supporting work papers. The findings and disclosures cover the following topics: contract issues, commingled bank accounts, lack of adequate supporting documentation, depositor insurance limits, related party transactions, questioned cost reimbursements, check endorsements and grant monitoring procedures. 4. Exhibit 1 represents a summary of findings and disclosures by grantees. 5. Exhibits 2 through 4 represent a summary of grant contributions and expenditures tested. 6. Exhibits 5 through 7 represent a detail listing of grantees' expenditures tested. 7. Exhibit 8 represents one of several monthly reports (including exhibits 5 through 7) recommended for periodic grant reporting as noted in report Recommendation 12. 8. Where tangible work products were created such as brochures, studies, polling results, videos, consultant summaries, etc., staff obtained copies and compiled this information in Work Product Files which are available upon request from Administrative Services. Airport Grantee Test work Page 2 BACKGROUND At your request, the Administrative Services Director instructed the Accounting Division to audit the funds distributed to the Airport Working Group (AWG), Citizens for Jobs and the Economy (CJE) and the Orange County Airport Alliance (Alliance). The term "Audit" has come to have several meanings today and can range from a simple adjustment of an account to a formal examination and checking of financial records. Within the accounting and auditing profession however, the term audit has certain industry expectations. Usually associated with an independent accounting firm rendering a formal opinion or written report, an "audit' is significantly greater in scope than the work described in this report. The limited test work procedures performed to generate this report do not constitute an audit by professional accounting and auditing standards. SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED Upon reviewing contracts, documents, minutes and other correspondence provided by the City Attorney and City Clerk, Administrative Services staff met with the City Attorney to better gain an understanding of grantees' operations, get any specific direction from the City Attorney and discuss certain limitations of our test work. We used this information to design certain limited test work procedures that could be performed in a reasonable fashion and provide information with respect to how the funds are being utilized and whether the grantees have complied with the terms of the grant agreements. Acknowledging that the grantees received funds from agencies other than the City of Newport Beach, we asked the grantees to represent to us a detail listing of all City of Newport Beach funds used since July 1, 1999. Testing procedures (after obtaining detailed account activity): 1. We selected all disbursements over $5,000 and a haphazard selection of smaller disbursements to test as follows: a) We agreed the represented disbursements to the original paid invoice, supporting documentation, and cancelled check. b) For expenditures for services, we requested copies of the contracts with the providers (to determine whether the services were in compliance with the City grant). c) For expenditures creating work products (surveys, flyers, newsletters or video), we requested copies of the work products (to determine whether the work products were in compliance with the City grant). d) For contractors providing services (including administration), we obtained copies of contracts. Airport Grantee Test work Page 3 e) For expenditures that appeared to be salary (of the grantees' staff) in nature, we inquired of the grantees the nature of the expenditure and requested copies of contracts. f) We inquired if the expenditure related to any ballot measure. g) We inquired if any payments were made to related parties. h) We inquired if the expenditure was pro -airport. i) We deferred to the City Attorney to determine if the expenditures are in compliance with the Activity Guidelines. 2. We inquired whether the CNB funds were maintained in a separate bank account (as required by the grant). 3. We obtained copies of the bank statements. a) We traced expenditures from the grantees' represented expenditure list over $5,000 to their bank statement to validate the amount actually cleared their bank. b) We reviewed cancelled checks over $5,000 to determine if the checks were endorsed by the payee and not assigned to a second party. c) We selected a sample of items clearing the bank statement and traced the activity to the list of expenditures represented by the grantees. 4. We obtained copies of work products to help validate the work was actually performed and to demonstrate how funds were utilized. INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF WORK PERFORMED Due to many factors, we acknowledged that the procedures as designed would have several limitations and prohibit many absolute conclusions. Examples of inherent limitations include the following: Vague contract guidelines and loosely defined activities often made it difficult to determine if represented work fell within the approved Activity Guidelines or not. Lack of tangible work product was problematic. As is the nature of many service contracts, attorneys, consultants and lobbyists often do not produce a tangible work product that can be reasonably tested for existence or compliance (i.e. we cannot validate that any work was actually performed or that the work was in compliance with Activity Guidelines). In many cases, our test work procedures only supported that the subcontractor billed the grantees and that the grantees paid the bill. Service invoices often did not provide sufficient detail to determine if work performed was In compliance with Activity Guidelines. Since invoices often did not provide sufficient detail, areas of this report place an over -reliance on representations by grantees of work performed. Airport Grantee Test work Page 4 Related party transactions introduce the possibility of expenditure abuses without providing an independent party to confirm that work was actually performed. For example Grantee A pays Related Party B for services that were never performed or performed poorly. If the provider were not a related party, the grantee is more likely to attempt to obtain value for the money spent. Reliance on an independent invoice is more meaningful than a related party invoice. Expense reimbursements to subcontractors and consultants for minor costs such as postage, copying or even travel is reasonable and customary but not readily "audit -able." This becomes an issue when major expenditures are passed through a subcontractor and are listed on the subcontractor's invoices as reimbursable expenses. Without auditing the subcontractor and reviewing their original invoices, it is difficult to determine if appropriate amounts are billed or additional costs were levied on top of the original bill. Lack of specific industry expertise by auditors is an issue. Statements of Auditing Standards No. 1 requires that audits are to be performed by a person adequately trained and proficient as an auditor. Although these test work procedures do not constitute an audit and although staff has sufficient training and experience in governmental and grant audits, staff does not have any experience with grants promoting political lobbying activities and may not possess the specific industry knowledge to discern common place from the unusual. FINDINGS, DISCLOSURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Contract issues: Many areas of our grant contracts appear to be missing/deficient especially when compared to the City's standard professional services agreements. Noted deficiencies would improve the City's ability to monitor and enforce terms and provisions of the contract that the current grant contracts are silent on. Other legal contract issues not listed here may be further refined by the City Attorney's Office. a. The contracts did not stipulate the standard of care to be used in subcontracting or expending grant funds. Without stipulating a standard in which services can be acquired, it is difficult to measure or enforce compliance with proper purchasing procedures, etc. b. A Periodic Reporting Mechanism was not stipulated by the contract. Although the grant contracts provide that the grantees shall provide an accounting of all expenditures of City funds, it does not stipulate the timing or specific form of the reporting. c. Although the contracts do not indicate salaries are a prohibited expenditure, one Council Member stated during the December 13, 1999 Council meeting, "the funds were going to be used for mailings and work products, not salaries." If this is the case, the contracts should have stipulated that grant funds couldn't be used for salaries. Grant funds were used for salaries; see Related Party disclosure (No 5). Airport Grantee Test work Page 5 The scope of work to be performed is vague. Due to the latitude of the Activity Guidelines and the nature of the services provided and level of detail in the invoices, the Activity Guidelines (Exhibit A of grantee contract) was not useful in developing tests of compliance. e. The contracts do not prohibit related party transactions. Without the prohibition, auditing those expenditures (payments to related parties) would require extensive work (possibly a full audit of the related party). f. The contracts do not stipulate the return of ineligibly spent funds not allowed under the terms of the contract. Only the Alliance agreement indicates the City will be reimbursed for any ineligibly spent funds. g. The contracts also do not address the disposition of unspent funds at the end of the contract dates. h. Subsequent grant allocations did not consistently receive a new contract or contract amendment. Contracts and/or amendments should remove all doubt about how and under what terms funds are to be used. i. Although the Alliance submitted a budget, it was not incorporated into the contract. If it was the City's intent to hold the Alliance to their budget, it should have been included in the contract document. j. The contract should require that any interest income be returned to the grant program for grant use. Substantial grant funds remain unused and outstanding. The contracts do not stipulate the beneficiary of interest income earned on CNB grant funds and that said earnings are to be accounted for and utilized consistent with the terms of other CNB grants. k. The contracts should state the permitted allowable investments or preclude advancing excessive funds to grantees. I. The contracts should include language defining the parameters of allowable direct and indirect administrative reimbursement. RECOMMENDATION 1: Substantial unspent grant funds remain outstanding. We recommend that new grant contracts be drawn up to address the noted deficiencies and have appropriate legal staff review the documents for further service contract issues or all unspent grant funds be returned to the City. Further, we recommend that any grant supplements also go hand in hand with contract supplements modifying the terms and scope of services where appropriate. 2. Original Invoices: Many payments were supported by only facsimile and/or copies of original invoices. Although it is not always practical to only pay based on original invoices, such a policy reduces the possibility of duplicate payments. Although it did not appear from our test work that duplicate payment of invoices was particularly problematic for the grantees, we noted one instance where CJE appeared to pay Curt Pringle twice based on the same September 1999 invoice. Airport Grantee Test work Page 6 RECOMMENDATION 2: We recommend that the City consider encouraging each grantee to authorize disbursements only on original invoices, allowing exceptions only when it is absolutely necessary, and documenting the exceptions. Regarding the apparent Curt Pringle duplicate payment, consider charging the grantee to conduct a review of their payment records and recoup any amount due from Curt Pringle. 3. Separate bank account: Only AWG had a separate bank account even though item 1 of the addendum to all grant agreements stipulated that all grantees were to establish a separate account for all funds granted by the City." Not maintaining a separate bank account allows the grantees much latitude in representing which expenditures were related to the CNB grants and possibly allowed the grantees to utilize CNB funds to subsidize other non -reported disbursements. It further extended staffs reliance on grantees' representations and made it difficult to monitor whether CNB funds were used for non -permissible activities. Examples of non -reported disbursements from a commingled account include a $12,421.01 payment to the Hyatt Regency, a $23,000 payment to Arnel Financial (endorsed by George L. Argyros) and several payments to Bruce Nestande and Wendy Cantor. It should be noted however, that because this account was commingled with other non-CNB funds, nothing could be concluded about these sited examples. RECOMMENDATION 3: In addition to further reiterating this requirement to the grantees, we recommend that the City receive duplicate bank statements on all applicable accounts directly from the bank, including canceled check information. We further recommend that a standard bank reconciliation be performed by the grantee at its own expense and be remitted to the City monthly including a detailed list of outstanding checks and other reconciling items between bank and ledger balances. 4. Deposit Insurance: Item 1 of the addendum to all grant agreements further stipulates that "The account be maintained by a financial institution that provides for deposit insurance guaranteed by the Federal government." Although each grantee utilized financial institutions that provide FDIC insurance, each grantee, at one time or another during the grant period, maintained balances in their accounts above the FDIC limit of $100,000 per entity, per financial institution. AWG and CJE maintained balances of several hundred thousand for numerous months that would not be protected by FDIC. We understand from the AWG treasurer that the AWG board has already taken action to address this issue. RECOMMENDATION 4: A number of possibilities exist that could remedy this non- compliance issue. The City might consider amending the grant contracts to allow certain acceptable substitute insurance or other acceptable collateral arrangements. The City could limit the amounts advanced to the grantees or the grantees could set up separate bank accounts at other financial institutions in $100,000 increments. Airport Grantee Test work Page 7 5. Related Party Transactions: As discussed in the Inherent Limitations section in this report, related party transactions limit the effectiveness of our test work procedures in that the invoices produced by the related party are not as credible as an invoice from an independent party. The president of CJE, Bruce Nestande, draws a salary from the grant funds and there is no known contract supporting the services he provides. CJE represented that $25,000 was utilized for services provided by Bruce Nestande. The executive director of the Alliance, Tom Wall also drew a salary from the grant that was supported by a consultant agreement signed by Tom Wall and Alliance Chairman Tom Daly. The Alliance represented that $50,000 plus expenses was utilized to support Tom Wall's efforts. Although the AWG consultant Dave Ellis does not appear to be a related party to the AWG, payment was made by AWG for certain legal services to a firm in which one of their board members (Barbara Lichman) works. There is a contract for legal services between AWG and Chevelier, Allen and Lichman LLP but payments amounting to $21,233.40 were made to Wood, Bohm & Francis, LLP to file a lawsuit regarding CA Article II Section 8 (Set aside Measure F). RECOMMENDATION 5: Although this disclosure does not represent these transactions as specific findings but rather brings these issues to the attention of City staff most familiar with the intent of CNB grant funds. It is not known to Administrative Services staff whether these transactions are permissible grant activities, however, these transactions are disclosed because the recipients of these disbursements are also related parties to executive members of the grant recipients. The audit team needs further direction from others more familiar with the spirit and intent of the grants to determine the appropriateness of these expenditures. 6. Search for Undisclosed Related Party Transactions: Our related party test work was limited to inquiries of the grantees and we relied on their representation. We did not do any testing to ensure other vendors were not related parties. RECOMMENDATION 6: We recommend that those more familiar with these vendors review the expenditure listing for other potential related parties. 7. Administrative Fees: CJE charged indirect administrative fees of $17,242.80 above and beyond the consultant retainer calculated at 2.5% of all expenditures administered under the program. This fee was represented to cover reasonable costs of clerical staff, office supplies and office space, etc. CJE also claimed an additional $1,266.75 of direct administrative fees for the cost of administering their bank account with Reed Davidson. Alliance also charged certain direct administrative costs totaling $9,251.26 including errors and omissions insurance, non-profit filing fees, office supplies, and account maintenance with Reed Davidson. Airport Grantee Test work Page 8 RECOMMENDATION 7: Although it is common for grant contracts to provide allowance for administrative fees to some extent, we were unable to determine whether certain claimed expenditures were allowable or excessive since the grant contracts are silent with respect to allowable direct and indirect administrative fees. We recommend that the grant contracts be rewritten to clarify this issue and that staff, familiar with the spirit and intent of these grants, make a determination as to whether or not these claimed costs are allowable. 8. Service Invoices: These invoices do not provide sufficient detail to provide a full understanding of services provided in many cases (especially lobbyists, but also most consultants). Because of the nature of the expenditures and lack of detail on the invoices, we were never able to determine precisely whether the activities of the consultants and lobbyists were either permitted or prohibited. RECOMMENDATION 8: We recommend that contracts for all lobbyists and consultants be drawn up requiring a periodic reporting of their activities to the grantee and a City project manager familiar with the customary activities of this industry. The grantee and the City project manager should periodically confer with each other to determine whether their activities and the cost of the consultant bring value to the airport effort. 9. Material Expense Reimbursements to Subcontractors: As noted in the Inherent Limitations section, expenses that are passed through a subcontractor are difficult to review without auditing the subcontractor themselves. Nearly 65% of the tested AWG expenditures passed through their subcontractor Ellis Hart & Associates. AWG was very helpful in supporting the work products that Ellis Hart & Associates procured however we did not review Ellis Hart & Associates records and invoices to determine whether Ellis Hart & Associates' costs were consistent with the amounts billed. RECOMMENDATION 9: We recommend that the City consider performing additional test work on Ellis Hart & Associates invoice records if work product information does not appear reasonable. 10.Check Endorsements: We noted two CJE checks endorsed by different payees (check 1133 to Blue and Gold Communications — endorsed by Rodriguez & Company, and checks 1130 & 1131 to Designed to Win — endorsed by James Bieler). Ira Glasky of Reed Davidson was made aware of the endorsement of the Blue and Gold check, but later asserted that the endorsement was reasonable based on invoices and correspondence he possesses which appear to affiliate Rodriguez and Company with Blue and Gold Communications. Checks with unusual endorsements can be indicative of irregular activities. RECOMMENDATION 10: Although we do not suspect irregularities in these transactions, we do recommend that staff familiar with these vendors determine if Airport Grantee Test work Page 9 the personnel endorsing these checks are legitimate and the funds were properly credited to the company and not a personal account. 11. Expenses Claimed Prior to Grant Award: AWG paid two invoices relating to Ellis Hart & Associates totaling $9,811.69 prior to the grant award. According to AWG Treasurer Anders Folkedel, Council Member Gary Adams indicated it was acceptable. The Alliance paid an invoice relating to Hill & Knowlton in the amount of $22,284.37 prior to the grant award. RECOMMENDATION 11: We recommend that appropriate staff make a determination whether these expenditures claimed prior to the grant period are deemed reasonable and are appropriately claimed. 12.Grant Monitoring: Although no specific motion was made on this topic, a Council Member commented at the December 13, 1999 meeting that grant funds would be audited on a monthly basis. No monthly test work of grant expenditures is currently being performed on a monthly basis. RECOMMENDATION 12: In order to allow for monthly test work of grant expenditures, we recommend that several reports and supporting documentation be remitted to the City on a monthly basis. Reports should include: a) Detailed expenditure report with appropriate categories and descriptions as shown in Exhibits 3, 4, & 5. b) Supporting documentation and/or invoices for individual expenditures greater than or equal to $5,000. c) Bank documents and related reconciliation in conjunction with recommendations 1 and 3 above. d) A cash recap report as shown in Exhibit 8. EXHIBIT SUMMARY 1. Summary of Findings & Disclosures by Grantees 2. Summary of Financial Information — Citizens for Jobs and the Economy 3. Summary of Financial Information — Airport Working Group 4. Summary of Financial Information —Alliance 5. Detail Expenditure Listing — Citizens for Jobs and the Economy 6. Detail Expenditure Listing — Airport Working Group 7. Detail Expenditure Listing —Alliance 8. Sample — Cash Recap Report Exhibit 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Summary of Findings and Disclosures by Grantee Airport Grants Citizens for Jobs and the Economy 1. Contract issues. 2. Several payments supported by copies of invoices. 3. Newport Beach funds commingled with other funds. 4. Balance in bank account exceeded FDIC limit. 5. Known related party transactions were $25,000 paid to Bruce Nestande and $17,242.80 withheld as an Administrative charge. 6. Curt Pringle was paid twice based on a September 1999 invoice. 7. Service contracts were not available for several service providers on retainer. 8. Invoices for consultants (primarily lobbyists) lacked sufficient detail to ascertain the services provided. 9. Three checks were endorsed by a person different than the payee. Checks with unusual endorsements can be indicative of irregular activities. Airport Working Group 1. Contract issues. 2. Several payments supported by copies of invoices. 3. Balance in bank account exceeded FDIC limit. 4. Known related party transaction of $21,233.40 was paid to Wood, Bohm & Francis, LLP. 5. Large expense reimbursements were made to subcontractor Ellis Hart & Associates (Not tested). 6. Expenses claimed prior to the grant award. Two invoices (totaling $9,811.69) related to expenditures prior to the start of the grant (AWG indicated Gary Adams gave approval on 3/3/99). Orange County Airport Alliance 1. Contract issues. 2. Several payments supported by copies of invoices. 3. Newport Beach funds commingled with other funds. 4. Balance in bank account exceeded FDIC limit. 5. Known related party transactions of $50,000 retainer and expenses paid to Wall & Associates. 6. Expenses claimed prior to the grant award. One invoice of $22,284.37 to Hill & Knowlton related to expenditures prior to the start of the grant. Exhibit 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Airport Grants Summary of Financial Information April 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 Citizens for Jobs and the Economy Council Revenues Approved City contributions $ 1,136,000.00 Other income Total Revenues Expenditures Administrative Charge Legal and Professional Commercials Grantee Consultant Other Consultant El Toro DC Meeting El Toro Issue Research El Toro Public Outreach Lobbyists Mailers Postage Total Expenditures Newport Beach funds remaining Bank Balance (December 31, 1999) Difference Expenditures by Category 3% Ao/. 55% to rj OAdminlstrative Charge (includes Legal and Professional) ■Commercials ❑ Grantee Consultant ❑Other Consultant ■EI Toro Research & Outreach MLobbyists ■Mallers & Postage Actual $ 900,000.00 $ 900,000.00 $ 18,509.55 315.00 58,079.15 25,000.00 17,500.00 405.07 4,557.29 4,138.50 188,936.80 385,722.86 3,790.23 $ 706,954.45 $ 193,045.55 (1) 218,346.45 $ 25,300.90 (1) 11% 2% Un-remitted Balance $ 236,000.00 Expenditures by Vendor 2% 11% ElBarbour Griffith & Rogers Total *Bruce Nestande Total ■Curt Pringle & Associates Total ■Lyle Overby & Associates Total ■Picture Perfect Campaigns Total 42% ■Blue & Gold Communications Total ❑ CJE Total *Designed to Win Total ❑Mayer Brown & Platt Total *Other Total (1) This amount (large or small) is meaningless since the bank account was commingled with other grant funds. Exhibit 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Airport Grants Summary of Financial Information April 1, 1999 to March 24, 2000 Airport Working Group Council Revenues Approved Actual City contributions $ 714,000.00 $ 614,000.00 Other Income 100.00 Total Revenues $ 614,100.00 Expenditures Community Meetings $ 39,160.36 Engineering 3,856.50 Legal and Professional 23,303.40 Lobbyists 14,000.00 Mailers 185,168.27 Polling 40,000.00 Postage 9,700.00 Publications 37,382.14 Grantee Consultant 9,811.69 Total Expenditures $ 362,382.36 Newport Beach funds remaining $ 251,717.64 Bank Balance (March 31, 2000) 252,260.09 Difference $ 542.45 Expenditures by Category ...�, 3% 11% 4% 54% E3Community Meetings ■Legal and Professional ❑Lobbyists ❑Mailers & Postage ■POIIing O Publications ■ Grantee Consultant (1) Subsequently remitted to grantee on April 21, 2000. 11 Un-remitted Balance $ 100,000.00 (1) Expenditures by Vendor 6% 3% 4% . _"' 64% ❑Curt Pringle & Associates Total ■Designed to Win Total ❑Ellis Hart Associates Total ❑Global Strategy Group Total ■US Postal Service Total Elwood, Bohm & Francis, LLP Total ■Other Exhibit 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Airport Grants Summary of Financial Information April 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 Orange County Airport Alliance Council Revenues Approved City contributions $ 406,296.00 Other income Total Revenues Expenditures Administrative Commercials DC Trip Grantee Consultant Letter Writing Campaign Miscellaneous Postage Public Relations & Media Coordination Studies Website Total Expenditures Newport Beach funds remaining Bank Balance Difference Expenditures by Category 3% 17% `a ,aoi 15% ❑Administrative ■ Commercials ❑Grantee Consultant ❑ Letter writing Campaign ■Miscellaneous OPublic Relations & Media Coordination ■Studies Un-remitted Actual Balance $ 305,895.00 $ 100,401.00 (2) 100,875.66 $ 406,770.66 $ 9,251.26 53,503.78 2,077.79 51,372.91 3,519.00 400.00 3,627.08 149,614.94 58,000.00 2,390.00 $ 333,756.76 $ 73,013.90 (1) 88,949.06 $ 16,935.16 (1) Expenditures by Vendor 6% 2% 1: 4% 100/ 17% LICal-Sumnce Associates, Inc. Total ®Hill& Knowlton Total OOrange County Bus Council Total ORoyce Multimedia, Inc. Total ■Tom Merrick Total O Wall & Associates Total ■Other (1) This amount (large or small) is meaningless since the bank account was commingled with other grant funds. (2) $88,234 was subsequently remitted to grantee on 2I2I2000. Exhibit 5 33/03/99 City of Newport Beach 10/08/99 City of Newport Beach 10/08/99 City of Newport Beach 02/04/00 City of Newport Beach 03/13/00 CIE 03/09/00 Reed & Davidson 03/13/00 Wood, Bohm &Francis LLP 02/17/00 Blue & Gold Communications 03/13/00 Ellis/Hart Associates, Inc 03/13/00 William A Bloomer Bruce Nestande Bruce Nestande Brace Nestande Brace Nestande Brute Nestande Lyle Overby & Associates 1123 Michael Potts Direct Advertising Pacific Media & Research Sibick & Company Inc Barbour Griffith & Rogers 1121 Barbour GnfBth & Rogers Barbour Griffith & Rogers 1116 Barbour Griffith &Rogers 1116 Curt Pringle &Associates 1124 Curt Pringle & Associates Curt Pringle & Associates Mayer Brawn & Platt Mayer Brawn & Platt 1122 Mayer Brawn & Platt 1122 Designed to Win Designed to Win Designed to Win Picture Perfect Campaigns 1126 US Postmaster 1111 u5 Postmaster Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution Total $0.00 Admin Charge $17,242.80 Admin Charge $1,266.75 Admin Charge Total $18,50955 Legal Research & Analysis $315.00 Legal Research & Analysis Tc $315.00 Commercial $55,000.00 Commercial $342.11 Commercial $2,737.04 Commercial Total $58,079.15 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,000.00 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,000.00 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,000.00 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,000.00 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,000.00 Grantee Consultant Retainer $25,000.00 Consulting Svcs - Outside $17,500.00 Consulting Svcs -Outside To $17,500.00 El Toro DC Meeting $405.07 EI Toro DC Meeting Total $405.07 El Toro Issue Research $777.79 El Tom Issue Research $3,77950 El Tom Issue Research Total $4,557.29 El Tom Public Outreach $4,13850 El Toro Public Outreach Total $4,138.50 Lobbyist $15,000.00 Lobbyist $45,856.28 Lobbyist $15,000.00 Lobbyist $155.74 Lobbyist $20,000 00 Lobbyist $5,000.00 Lobbyist $10,000.00 Lobbyist $62,892.73 Lobbyist $7,508.90 Lobbyist $7,523.15 Lobbyist Total $188,936.80 Mailer $118,376.81 Mailer $51,040.00 Mailer $124,700.00 Mailer $91,606.05 Mailer Total $385,722.86 Postage $1,790.23 Postage $2,000.00 Postage Total $3,790.23 Grand Total $706,954.45 $ 200,0D0.00 $ 15D,000.00 $ 500,00000 $ 900,000.00 2.5%Admin Fee Admin Fees Associated With Administrering CJE Account S - Freedom of Information Request- Legal Anlysis Video Production _ Video Production Video Guest Fees & Expenses 1/00 Bruce Nestande's Monthly Fee 10/99 Bruce Nestande's Monthly Fee 11199 Bruce Nestande's Monthly Fee 12199 Bruce Nestande's Monthly Fee _ 2100 Bruce Nestande's Monthly Fee 5-9199 Consulting Services Monitoring County and Local Government Labor Union Official to attend DC Meeting Accumulate Mailer Responses Research on the Eltoro Reuse Opinions PR for Coati Shapes Concept $ $ 900,000 00 Retum Postage on Mailers Return Postage on Mailers Exhibit 6 AIRPORT WORKING GROUP: April 1,1999 - March 24, 2000 Date I Payer/Payee IlmmiceI Chkir I Category I Debit I Credit I W/P REF I Description ofSmke Received )4/08/99 City of Newport Beach income $ 50,000.00 )7/28/99 City of Newport Beach Income $ 150,000.00 11/19/99 City of Costa Mesa income $ 100 Go R128/00 City of Newport Beach Income $ 164,000.00 32/IS/00 City of Newport Beach Income $ 250,000.00 InmmeTotai $0.00 $ 614,100.00 LO/25/99 33/03/00 )3/03/00 11/08/99 )3/03/00 )3/03/00 )3/03/00 )3/03/00 )3/03/00 )3/03/00 )2/04/00 13/03/00 )2/1B/00 33/20/00 Costa Mesa Park & Rec Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hatt Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Assocates Ellis Hart Associates Orange County Mining Co Orange County Mining Co Tom Anderson-Volounteer Relmb )1/28/00 PSOMAS Ellis Hart Associates Wood, Bohm & Francis, LLP Curt Pringle & Associates Cut Pringle & Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Global Strategy Group Global Strategy Group AWG Santa Ana Post Office LIS Postal Serice US Postal Servke US Postal Service US Postal Service Designed to Win Ellis Hart Associates Ellis Hart Associates Community Meeting $300.00 Get Mailer-Rec Center Deposit Community Meeting $2,4S/36 Alternatives F&G Information Packs for Comm Meetings Community Mmbng $4,167.12 Anaheim Hills Community Meeting Mailer 10072 Community Meeting $5,089.85 Community Meeting -Costa Mesa Comm. Briefing Mailer Community Meeting $403.98 Data Entry from "Cartoon Mailer" Community Meeting $500.16 Data Entry from "Voice Your Opinion/Jain the Name Game" Community Meeting $14.00 Delivery Service 2118 Count of Omnge.Christensen Community Meeting $16.25 Fed Ex 12121 Barbara Lichman-Single Subj Rule Litigation Community Meeting $9,999.44 Newport -Mesa Community Meeting Mailer Community Meeting $5,136.56 OrangeMlla Park 10093 Community Meeting $8,810.81 Tustin Meeting postcards Community Meeting $977.11 Facility Fees Community Meeting $1,000.00 Fadlity Fees Community Meeting $287.72 Printing Costs for Educational Forums Community Meeting Total $39,16036 $ - Engineering $3,856 50 Mist; Engineering Work Engineering Total $3,856.50 $ - 10062 Legal & Prof. Swrs $2,070.00 Data Entry for TERPA Freedom of Info Act Request Legal & Prof. Svcs $21,233AO File Law Suit- CA Article II Section 8 (Set aside Measure F) Legal & Prof. Svcs Total $23,303.40 $ - 82 Lobbyist Retalner $3,500.00 Retainer 74 Lobbyist Retainer $10,500.00 Retainer 11199-1/00 Lobbyist Retainer Total $14,000.00 $ - 10076 Mailer $45,191.77 "Orange County Report" Nov. Mailing 10082 Mailer $45,431.75 "Stop the Fight" 10059 Mailer $46,846.50 Family-101K Produced 1009S Mailer $44,650.00 Glide Slope mailer 10065 Mailer $3,048.25 Reprints of "South County Wants To" Mailer Total $185,168.27 $ - 1471 Polling $20,000.00 Polling - 1st 1/2 cost 1505 Polling $20,00000 Polling -2nd 1/2 cost Palling Total $40,000.00 $ - Postage $2,500.00 Reimbursement for Postage -Tustin Postage $1,500.00 Postage Deposit Postage $1,500.00 Postage Deposit Postage $500.00 Postage Deposit Postage $1,000.00 Postage Deposit Postage $2,700.00 Postage Deposit Postage Total 49,700.00 $ - Pubhration $37,382.14 Joint Mailer w/ WE (Millenium plan) Pubiimton Total $37,382.14 $ - 10009 Grantee Consultant Retainer $4,776.67 Retainer-2/99 (Bill Was $5,776.67) 10012 Grantee Consultant Retainer $5,035.02 Retainer-3/99 $5,000 plus exp. Grantee Consultant RetalnerTotal $9,811.69 $ Grand Total $362,38236 $ 614,10000 Exhibit 7 ALLIANCE: Aoril 1, 1999 -December 31, 1999 Date 1Payor/Payee [Invoice IChk# Icategory I Debit) Credit I W/P REF 1 09/20/99 Cal-Surance Associates, Inc Check #1029 Admtnstmttve $5,634.00 03/30/99 Checking Supplies Adminstrattve $15.24 03/30/99 CheWng Supplies Adminstative $20.57 O5/18/99 Checking Supplies Adminstative $71.33 05/03/99 Fanchis Tax Board Check #95 Adminstative $25.00 05/03/99 Internal Revenue Svc Check #94 Adminstative $500.00 06/22/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1006 Adminstative $573.16 07/26/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1016 Adminstative $571.36 O8/20/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1020 Adminstative $319.48 09/28/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1033 Adminstative $340.08 11/11/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1044 Adminstative $289.50 12/02/99 Reed & Davidson Check #1051 Adminstative $302.92 Secretary of State Service Charge Staples CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions Cablerep Advertising Cablerep Advertising Cablerep Advertising Cablerep Advertising Cablerep Advertising Comcast Adverstising Royce Multimedia, Inc Royce Multimedia, Inc Royce Multimedia, Inc Royce Multimedia, Inc Royce Multimedia, Inc Time Warner Communications Time Warner Communications Time Warner Communications Time Warner Communications Time Warner Communications Check #1049 Adminstative Adminstative Check#1010 Adminstative Administrative Total CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions CNB Contributions Total Check#1014 Commericals Check 111023 Commericals Check#1038 Commericals Check #1042 Commericals Check #1057 Commericals Check #1013 Commericals .Check #1031 Commericals Check#1022 Commericals Check #1004 Commericats Check#1034 Commericals Check #1046 Commericals Check #1015 Commericals Check #1024 Commericals Check#1037 Commericals Check #1043 Commericals Check#1058 Commericals Commericals Total 11/16/99 Tom Merrick Check#1047 DCTrip DC Trip Total 06/01/99 Wall & Associates Check #1002 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp 07/01/99 Wall & Associates Check#1007 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp 07/29/99 Wall & Associates Check#1017 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp 08/30/99 Wall & Assocates Check #1025 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp 09/29/99 Wall & Associates Check #1035 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp 11/02/99 Wall & Associates Check #1041 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $10.00 $4.95 $573.67 $9,251.26 $0.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $850.00 $1,094.40 $12,515.62 $1,710.19 $12,559.13 $7,509.39 $415.05 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $3,250.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $53,503.78 $2,077.79 $2,077.79 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1 $ 89,394.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 36,501.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 306,695.00 Descrilion of Service Received Errors & Omissions and Gen Liab Insurance 501 c4 Filing Fees for Administering Account Fees for Administering Account Fees for Administering Account Fees for Administering Account Fees for Administering Account Fees for Administering Account Filing Fee AirTime AirTime AirTime AirTime AirTime AirTime OC Airport Alliance TV Series Video Duplications Videotaping of Sound Monitoring @ El Toro Air Time Air Time Air Time Air Time Air Time Reimb Alliance Board Member -DC Trip w/ OCRRA Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Exhibit 7 CE: Aoril 1. 1999 - December 31.1999 Payor/Payee (Invoice IChk# ICategory I Debitl Credit I W/P REF I (Description of Service Received I Wall & Associates Check #1050 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $5,000.00 Dec-99 Wall & Associates Check #1059 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $5,000.00 Jan-00 Wall & Associates Check #93 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $10,000.00 Wall &Associates Check #1009 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $271.37 _Expense Reimb Wall & Associates Check #1021 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $385.07 Expense Reimb Wall & Associates Check#1030 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $188.46 Expense Reimb Wall & Associates Check #1040 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $201.28 Expense Reimb Wall &Associates Check #1048 Grantee Consultant Retainer and Exp $326.73 Expense Reimb Grantee Consultant Retainer and Ex $51,372.91 $ - Bonnie O'Neil Check #1008 Letter Writing Campaign $594.00 See Work Product File for Detail Bonnie O'Neil Check #1018 Letter Writing Campaign $885.00 See Work Product File for Detail Bonnie O'Neil Check #1032 Letter writing Campaign $1,005.00 See Work Product File for Detail Bonnie O'Neil Check #1053 Letter Writing Campaign $525.00 See Work Product File for Detail Bonnie O'Neil Check #1060 Letter Writing Campaign $510.00 See Work Product File for Detail Letter Writing Campaign Total $3,519.00 $ - Business Renewal Svcs Check #1027 MISC $400.00 MISCTotal $400.00 $ - Interest Income Non-CNB Contributions $ 4.95 Non-CNB Contributions Non-CNB Contnbutions $ 50,000.00 Non-CNB Contributions Non-CNB Contnbutions $ 50,000.00 Non-CNB Contributions Non-CNB Contributions $ 70.71 Non-CNB Contributions Total $0.00 $ 100,075.66 Mailing & Marketing Check #1039 Postage $60.00 Mailing & Marketing Check #1052 Postage $3,067.08 US Postmaster Check #1055 Postage $500.00 Postage Total $3,627.08 $ - HIII & Knowlton Check #1011 Public Relations & Media Coordination $15,822.78 Hill & Knowlton Check #1019 Public Relations & Media Coordination $26,481.39 See Work Product File for Detail HIII & Knowlton Check #1026 Public Relations & Media Coordination $31,238.79 PUBLIC OUTREACH HIII & Knowlton Check #1036 Public Relabons & Media Coordination $20,853.09 A) Executive Committee Hill & Knowlton Check #97 Public Relations & Media Coordination $22,284.37 B) Recruitment of Minority Supporters Hill & Knowlton Check #1045 Public Relations & Media Coordination $17,509.36 C) Outreach to Labor HIII & Knowlton Check #1061 Public Relations & Media Coordination $15,425.16 Organization & Distribution of Commercials Public Relations & Media Coordinati, $149,614.94 $ - Orange County Bus Council Check #1005 Studies $10,000.00 MCAS El Toro Related Studies Orange County Bus Council Check #1012 Studies $20,000.00 MCAS El Toro Related Studies Orange County Bus council Check #1028 studies $10,000.00 MCAS El Toro Related Studies Orange county Bus council check #1054 Studles $18,000.00 OCBC Catalytic Demand and Property Values Studies Total $58,000.00 $ - Barbara Foster Check #96 Webslte $2,000.00 _Alliance Website (Started by Peggy Ducey) Tardan Tech & Marketing Grp Check#1056 Website $390.00 Website Hosting Website Total $2,390.00 $ - Grand Total $333,756.76 $ 406,770.66 2 Exhibit 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -Airport Grantees Cash Recap Report Grantee: 1 CNB Grant Funds Available - Beginning of Period 2 Interest Income 3 Additional CNB Grant Funds Received During Period 4 Total Grant Funds Available During Period (Lines 1-3) 5 Less: Expenditures 6 CNB Grant Funds Available -End of Period (Line 4 minus 5) 7 Bank Balance 8 Less: Outstanding Checks (Provide Detailed List) 9 Other Reconciling Items 10 CNB Grant Funds Available -End of Period (Equals Line 22) County of Orange MEMO DATE: February 23, 2001 TO: Distribution List 1�� ist FROM: Micki Harris SUBJECT: Seventh Amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Enclosed is a copy of the Seventh Amendment of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted it on January 23, 2001 and the ordinance is in effect on February 23, 2001. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 714-834-4630. Distribution: PAC Members City of Newport Beach City of Costa Mesa RECEIVED BY PLANM NEWpO DEPARTMENT H CITY 0 FE6.2 6 2001 PM AM i 10111212g466 ?18191 I I I I I i I YVI. Ana Height Spec'IcP! z� f tC��. fai � -January 2001 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Seventh Amendment PREPARED BY: Environmental & Project Planning Services Division County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department Tom Mathews, Director Adopted October 1986 1" Revised March 1988 2"d Revised December 1989 P Revised May 1991 0 Revised August 1996 5`h Revised November 1999 61h Revised September 2000 7`h Revised January 2001 r Special thanks to the members of the specific plan ad hoc committees for their assistance in the preparation of the original plan in 1986. BUSINESS PARK AD HOC COMMITTEE Dan DeMille Jack Mullan. Harvey Shaw Cisca Stellhorn Roger Summers Bill Warren RESIDENTIAL EQUESTRIAN AD HOC COMMITTEE Martha Durkee John Hughes Rita Jones Violet Kellinger Kathy Noel Mary Slouka SANTA AN'A HEIGHTS I i I I I I Ordinance 3601 (Resolution 86-1324), October 15, 1986 The original Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was prepared and adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to implement the Land Use Compatibility Program for Santa Ana Heights. Amendment 87-1 and Zone Change 87-22 (Resolution No. 88-412 Ordinance No. 3694), March 30, 1988 This is the first amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SAHSP). It provides minor technical refinements to the Land Use Plan Map and Land Use District Map to adjust the boundaries of the PA "Professional and Administrative" and OSR "Open Space/Recreation" Districts with the vacated right-of-way of Orchard Drive (west of the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel). It also changes the street cross -sections for Cypress Street, Mesa and Orchard Drives and their descriptive text within Chapter III Community Design Program to agree with the City of Newport Beach's cross -sections. Amendment 89-1 and Zone Change 89-13 (Resolution No. 89-1666, Ordinance No. 3776), December 6, 1989 This is the second amendment to the SAHSP. It provides a major change to the alignment of the Birch/Mesa intersection. It also changes Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to Birch Street, and Birch Street, from 60 foot right-of- way to a secondary arterial with an 80 foot right-of-way. Acacia Street and Orchard Avenue (in the BP District) from 60 foot to 70 foot right-of-way. Also, that property zoned REQ-Residential Equestrian north of the new alignment was changed to BP -Business Park. Other sections of the Specific Plan, including text and graphics, were also revised to reflect these changes. This amendment was previously approved by the City of Newport Beach. Amendment 90-1 and Zone Change 90-077 (Resolution No. 91-601 Ordinance No. 3822) May 21, 1991 This is the third amendment to the SAHSP. It provides new site development standards for the RMF "Residential Multiple Family District" that applies to the "Lange Drive" block off of Mesa Drive. The new site development standards permit a decrease in the land area needed for each dwelling unit from the existing 2,400 square feet to 1,500 square feet only SPECIFIC PLAN when all nine (9) parcels to this proposal are consolidated into one unified development, subject to conditions. Amendment 94-1 and Zone Change PA 94-0018 (Resolution No. 96-634 Ordinance No. 3968) August 20, 1996 This is the fourth amendment to the SAHSP. It is a comprehensive amendment to update general information in the text and graphics reflecting land use changes and infrastructure improvements that have occurred since the plan's adoption. Also included in this amendment are revisions to the land use regulations for the BP "Business Park" District, the PAC "Professional and Administrative Consolidation" District, and acoustical study requirements for the RK "Residential Kennel" District. Amendment 99-01 and Zone Change ZC 99-03; Community Profile Amendment CPA 99-02 (Resolution No. 99-479, Ordinance No. 99-23), November 23, 1999. This is the fifth amendment to the SAHSP. It approved a zone change and Community Profile Amendment to permit the development of a three story office building on Birch Street. It amended the Land Use District Map rezoning certain land from REQ "Residential Equestrian" District to BP "Business Park" District. Amendment 00-01 and Zone Change ZC 00-01 - (Resolution No. 00-359, Ordinance No. 00-10) September 12, 2000. This is the sixth amendment to the SAHSP. It approves a zone change to modify requirements in the BP "Business Park" District and REQ "Residential Equestrian" District development standards. It amends the Community Design program and refines other sections of the specific plan to reflect recent changes in the county organization. Amendment 00-02 and Zone Change ZC 00-05 - Planning Application PA 000-129 (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 0127, Ordinance No. 01-1) January 23, 2001. This is the seventh amendment to the SAHSP. It approves a zone change to modify the text with technical refinements and corrections to the sixth amendment. Amendments to Plan SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 1. INTRODUCTION A. Authorization and Purpose........................................................1-1 B. Goals and Objectives................................................................1-1 C. Description of Planning Area....................................................1-3 1. Land Uses Within Specific Plan Area...................................1-3 2. Land Uses Surrounding Specific Plan Area ..........................I-3 D. Planning Background................................................................1-5 It. THE PLAN A. Land Use Plan..........................................................................11-1 B. Circulation Plan.......................................................................11-3 C. Public Services/Utilities Plan....................................................11-4 D. Recreation Plan......................................................................11-11 Ill. COMMUNITY DESIGN PROGRAM A. Introduction...........................................................................111-1 B. Architectural Guidelines for Business Park Uses .................... III-1 1. Building Massing/Form ......................................................III-1 2. Exterior Building Materials ................................................III-2 3. Glazing.............................................................................III-2 ' 4. Building Entrances.............................................................III-2 5. Building Rooflines.............................................................III-2 6. Energy Considerations .......................................................III-2 7. Sound Attenuation.............................................................III-3 C. Landscape Guidelines.............................................................111-3 1. Streetscape........................................................................III-3 2. Entry Treatment .................................................................111 4 3. Buffer Design..................................................................III-11 4. Parking Lot Design..........................................................III-13 5. Hardscape and Street Furniture Design............................III-13 6. Landscape Maintenance ..................................................III-15 SPECIFIC PLAN IV. LAND USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS A. Purpose and Intent.................................................................IV-1 B. Definitions ..............................................................................IV-1 C. General Provisions.................................................................IV-1 D. District Regulations................................................................IV-5 1. OSR "Open Space/Recreation" District .......................... IV-S 2. REQ 'Residential Equestrian" District ............................ IV-6 3. RK 'Residential Kennel' District ............................... IV-10 4. RSF 'Residential Single Family" District ..................... IV-13 5. RMF 'Residential Multiple Family" District .................. IV-16 6. HN "Horticultural Nursery" District ........................... IV-1 9 7. GC "General Commercial' District ............................ IV-20 8. BP 'Business Park" District ....................................... IV-24 9. PA "Professional and Administrative Office" District. IV-31 10. PACC 'Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation" District ........................................ IV-33 11. PD 'Planned Development" Combining District....... IV-34 12. (S) "Commercial Stable" Overlay District .................. IV-34 13. (N) "Commercial Nursery" Overlay District ............... IV-35 E. Procedures ...........................................................................IV-36 1. Discretionary Permit Procedures ..................................... IV-36 2. Specific Plan Amendment Procedures ............................. IV-36 Table of Contents P SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Exhibit Number Page 1 Regional Location....................................................................1-2 2 Local Vicinity ...........................................................................1-2 ' 3 Existing Land Use.....................................................................1-4 4 Surrounding Land Use..............................................................1-5 5 6 Circulation Plan......................................................................II-2 Water Distribution Improvement Plan.....................................11-5 7 Sewer System Improvement Plan.............................................II-6 8 9 Drainage System Improvement Plan ........................................ Recreation Plan.......................................................................11-9 II-8 10 Landscape Plan/Buffer Diagram..............................................III-5 11 Typical Section Through Acacia Street....................................III-6 12 Typical Section Through Birch Street and Mesa Drive ............III-7 13 Typical Section Through Orchard Drive in Business Park District................................................................................... III-8 14 Typical Section Through Cypress Street and Mesa Drive East of Birch Street..................................................................III-9 15 Business Park/Residential Equestrian Buffer Design ..............III-12 16 Business Park Parking Lot -Landscape Design Concepts ......... 111-14 17 Land Use District Map............................................................IV-3 18 Business Park Cross Section.................................................IV-4 I i SPECIFIC PLAN List of Exhibits SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Introduction H SANTA ANA HEIGHTS I 11 1 11 1 i 1 1 A. Authorization and Purpose On February 26, 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 85-257, which created a new land use plan for the unincorporated community of Santa Ana Heights and directed the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to prepare a specific plan for the community. The purpose of the specific plan effort was to provide a comprehensive set of plans, guidelines, regulations and implementation programs for guiding and ensuring the orderly development of Santa Ana Heights in accordance with the adopted land use plan. This document, in conjunction with the Orange County Zoning Code and other applicable ordinances, represents the specific plan for Santa Ana Heights. It has been prepared in accordance with the California Government Code (sections 65450 et. seq.) and is consistent with the Board - adopted land use plan for the area. Adoption of this specific plan, in effect, repeals the zoning regulations previously applicable to properties within the specific plan boundaries and replaces them with a set of land use regulations unique to the area. As required by the Government Code, all future development proposed within the specific plan area must be found consistent with the adopted land use regulations. As specified by the Subdivision Map Act, all final or tentative subdivision maps approved within the specific plan area must also be consistent with the specific plan. An important function of the specific plan and the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 508A is to reduce the need for extensive planning and environmental documentation related to subsequent development of the area. For development projects that are designed consistent with the specific plan provisions, the environmental documentation in the Supplemental EIR may be used in obtaining the applicable permit approvals. SPECIFIC PLAN B. Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is to provide for the orderly and balanced development of the community consistent with the Board -adopted land use plan. In carrying out this goal, the principal objectives are the following: • Encourage the upgrading of existing residential neighborhoods and business development areas. • Ensure well planned business park and commercial developments which are adequately buffered from adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Encourage the consolidation of smaller contiguous lots in the business park area. • Ensure that business park and residential traffic is separated to the maximum extent possible, while minimizing impact upon existing parcels. • Ensure adequate provision of public works facilities as development occurs. • Enhance equestrian opportunities within the residential equestrian neighborhood. • Enhance the overall aesthetic character of the community. These goals and objectives have guided the preparation of this Specific Plan and are incorporated into the various components of the plan. 1-1 Introduction REGIONAL LOCATION MAP SANTA ANA COSTA MESA A In OC cc'y� EXHIBIT 1 Ca TUSTIN IRVINE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS NEWPORT li�_ BEACH tj SANTA ANA HEIGHTS VICINITY MAP SPECIFIC PLAN aC JOFN WAYFE N. I� L, .��� D 1; a1; o.I_FIVI E o l-JU �D 13 �_Ta SANTA ANA 1 4 HEIGHTS SPECIFIC ,.. PLAN AREA Ws►onve F CITY OF COSTA MES Cl CIT BEA EXHIBIT 2 1-2 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS C. Description of Planning Area The Santa Ana Heights community consists of approximately 450 acres of unincorporated territory, located just south of John Wayne Airport in Orange County (Exhibit 1). In an effort to simplify the preparation of a specific plan for the community, most properties with zoning already consistent with the Board -adopted land use plan were not included within the specific plan area. The resulting study area covers approximately 175 acres and is generally bounded by South Bristol Street to the north, Mesa Drive to the south, Santa Ana Avenue to the west and residential property lines along Bayview Avenue to the east (Exhibit 2). .1. Land Uses Within Specific Plan Area The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area is characterized by a diversity of land uses. Existing uses in the eastern section of the specific plan area (east of Irvine Avenue) are predominantly residential, the lot pattern of which is heavily influenced by the community's historic ties to small plot agricultural activities. Parcels along Acacia, Birch and Cypress streets are predominantly one-half acre in size and consist of single family residences and multiple family units, along with equestrian stables, nurseries and other small businesses. Land uses along Birch and Acacia are converting to business park uses. Land uses along South Bristol Street include a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Office and residential uses, including a 52-unit apartment complex, predominate along Birch Street between South Bristol Street and Mesa Drive. Existing uses within the western portion of the specific plan area (west of Irvine Avenue) consist of a mixture of residential, commercial and recreational uses, including the Newport Beach Golf Course, a small ' commercial center on the corner of Bristol Street and Santa Ana Avenue, a number of apartment complexes ranging in size from 32 to 180 units, single family homes, nurseries, kennels and a veterinary clinic. The Riverside Drive cul-de-sac, located off of Orchard Drive, contains a small single family subdivision where a majority of residents currently operate dog kennels. Also located off of Orchard Drive is a private cul-de-sac, Kline Drive, containing a broad mix of land uses including single family homes, a horticultural nursery and SPECIFIC PLAN vacant parcels used for vehicle storage purposes. Also located within this portion of Santa Ana Heights is the Sherwood Estates tract (commonly referred to as the Pegasus tract), an 88-unit, single family subdivision constructed in the mid-1960's. The majority of these homes are well maintained. The Santa Ana -Delhi Flood Control Channel also traverses the specific plan area in a north to south direction. Exhibit 3 illustrates the location of existing land uses within the specific plan area. 2. Land Uses Surrounding Specific Plan Area The City of Newport Beach surrounds the eastern portion of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area. Along Irvine Avenue, between South Bristol Street and Orchard Drive, is a strip of office buildings, commercial businesses and several small homes within the City boundaries. Also within the City is the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR- 73), the Bayview Planned Development consisting of residential, office and hotel uses, and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to the north, east and south of the specific plan area, respectively. That portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course within the City also lies to the south of the study area. The City of Costa Mesa forms the northern boundary of the specific plan area along Bristol Street near Santa Ana Avenue. Existing uses include a hotel, other commercial uses, and vacant land. Unincorporated land surrounding the study area consists of the existing Upper Bay residential tracts and multi -acre estates to the east and south, and a wide variety of residential uses as well as the Santa Ana Country Club to the west. Exhibit 4 illustrates the location of land uses surrounding the specific plan area. 1-3 Introduction EXISTING LAND USE (1994) t__S I'.CA9Q. •• • '1 •rnrer••4e... �a Wwaas�sal.u�i/W W11�W�u1u riIilli,rir n r- SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPrrlrlr PI ANI ....I.JV1•-14iil C>.iai aJ.il...•...W—i t..i lLii l.li 11.1 _ :unrn nmsnn. Single I'amily l gat 1 �,� ll Sinl;lt• 1 amity Rr.%idt•nros svilh Krnnrh QMixed I Ise On I atlt• Altit ullmal I Ill% ('unanncial/Office Kuq Jc f.nuilp ,unl null Innuly u•+idvm r<, alaLL•a (1 Illllsl•lim. %, 111x11sall 11III11•/ •J 11.11. 1111a1111•1•.•\I • 1: _1• Itt•I tt•.tl lttn/( )I tt•tl !il l;tt 1• Apall m-m (.nnydt•e L. Wi .Inl rvl nn1"- . L I-4 NORM ^w a +nn r.nn '.r .11r in I rrl 1' SANTAANA HEIGHTS L �I 1 'LJ D 0 John Waync Aitltrttl Q Rcsitlt:nlial Recreation/Oimo spat t. _.'� i )flit o/( uuunt:u i,tl/I i};hl IndusU i.tl SPFCIFIC PI ANI D. Planning Background Land use planning in the Santa Ana Heights area has been closely associated with the preparation of a master plan for John Wayne Airport QWA). In February 1985, after several years of study and public meetings, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a master plan for the airport and a Land Use Compatibility Program (LUCP) for the Santa Ana Heights area. A comprehensive environmental impact report (Final EIR 508) that addressed both plans was also certified at that time. The purpose of the LUCP was two -fold: 1) to establish a program to achieve compatibility between projected noise levels at JWA and land uses in all affected areas, and 2) to develop a comprehensive land use plan for the unincorporated Santa Ana Heights area. The Board -approved LUCP provides for the retention of all noise compatible land uses, such as open space, commercial and office uses. Other uses more sensitive to noise, such as residences, were also retained, except along Acacia and Birch Streets where pressures for land use change were great. In order to meet state airport noise requirements in areas where residential uses were planned to remain, the Board approved two noise compatibility programs: Purchase Assurance and Acoustical Insulation. In areas where residential uses were planned to be eliminated, the Board adopted amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element providing for land use conversion to business park uses. Basic land use patterns for the area were thus established, but land use regulations were not adopted. In order to establish land use regulations and other implementation programs tailored to the unique needs of Santa Ana Heights, the Board directed that both a redevelopment plan and specific plan be developed for the community. The Board adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Santa Ana Heights Project Area on July 15, 1986. The Project Area encompasses most of Santa Ana Heights, including all of the specific plan area, as well as John Wayne Airport and the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The Redevelopment Plan allows the use of tax increment financing by the Orange County Development Agency. Tax increment financing enables the Agency to recapture property tax revenue from the Project Area to provide needed improvements within the area. The Redevelopment Plan has and is expected to serve as a useful tool to help finance the various projects being undertaken in the Santa Ana Heights area. These projects include 1-5 Introduction ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ' SPECIFIC PLAN Residential Purchase and Acoustical Insulation programs, as well as circulation, recreation and public facility improvements, and neighborhood revitalization programs. In 1993, the noise environment within Santa Ana Heights changed as a result of new departure procedures used by commercial aircraft at JWA as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The impacts of the new procedures in the area are addressed in Final EIR 546. In addition to this introduction, the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan consists of three chapters. Chapter II presents the following plan components: Land Use, Circulation, Public Services/Utilities and Recreation. Chapter III ' provides the architectural and landscape guidelines and Chapter IV presents ;the land use district regulations to be applied to all development with the specific plan area. Introduction 1-6 I 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 1 SPECIFIC PLAN 1 1 r-, I J 1 F L 7 J 1 0 11 1 i The Plan 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS A. Land Use Plan The Board -adopted Land Use Plan for Santa Ana Heights reflects present and future physical, market and environmental conditions and existing land use patterns. Within the specific plan area, the Land Use Plan calls for a variety of uses, including low-rise office development, commercial uses, recreational facilities and varying densities of residential uses (most of which currently exist). ' Exhibit 5 depicts the adopted Land Use Plan for the specific plan area and details the general type, location and intensity of development ' proposed using the following land use categories_ • Low Density Residential (0.5 2.0 DU/Ac) ' The general character of the "Low Density Residential' category is single family, large -lot estates within a semi -rural environment. This designation applies to property located south of Mesa Drive. • Medium Low Density Residential (2.03.5 DU/Ac) The "Medium Low Density Residential' category provides for single family, large -lot residential uses with ancillary equestrian facilities. This category is also designed for the maintenance of ' commercial equestrian stable facilities. This designation applies to properties located along Cypress Street and along the north side of Mesa Drive between Acacia Street and the Upper Bay tract. ' • Medium Density Residential (3.5-6.5 DU/Ac) ' The general character of the "Medium Density Residential' category is single family detached dwelling units, although townhouses or cluster arrangements are permitted. Dog kennels and horticultural nurseries are also permitted uses under this category. Much of the western portion of the specific plan area is designated as "Medium Density Residential', ' including the Pegasus tract, the Riverside Drive cul-de-sac located off of Orchard Drive and the private cul-de-sac, Kline SPECIFIC PLAN Drive, located off of Orchard Drive. In the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area, the area from Bayview Avenue to Orchid Street and from Zenith Avenue to Mesa Drive is also designated "Medium Density Residential". Medium High Density Residential (6.5-18.0 DU/Ac) The "Medium High Density Residential' category is designed to encourage and maintain greater densities of residential development. This designation provides for townhomes, condominiums, duplex and triplex units, apartments, and some small -lot, single family units. This category covers the duplex and apartment uses on the south side of Orchard Drive near Santa Ana Avenue and the apartments on Santa Ana Avenue just west of the Pegasus tract. High Density Residential (18.0+ DU/Ac) The "High Density Residential' category provides for higher density multiple family residential development, including apartments and small -lot duplex, triplex and fourplex units. The two existing apartment complexes located along Mesa Drive between Santa Ana Avenue and Irvine Avenue are included in this category. Community Commercial The "Community Commercial' category is designed to encourage commercial centers for retail trade, convenience goods, services and professional office uses. Much of the property along South Bristol Street, including the small commercial center located at Santa Ana Avenue, is designated "Community Commercial". The Plan I 1 1 1 F 1 1 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CIRCULATION PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT 5 11-2 NORTII 4 0 )00 600 Scala in Feet SANTA ANA HEIGHTS • Professional Administrative ' The "Professional -Administrative" category provides for the development and/or continued use of low -profile "business park" type professional and administrative offices. A relatively narrow range of commercial uses will also be permitted. Design standards and regulations providing for structural setbacks and landscaped buffers will ensure that the potential for land use conflicts is minimal. This designation is applied ' primarily to properties along Acacia and Birch streets in the eastern portion of Santa Ana Heights. ' Agriculture The "Agriculture" category provides for a wide range of ' horticultural uses and applies to two properties located on the south side of Orchard Drive in the western section of Santa Ana Heights. This designation will permit the continued operation tof a commercial nursery on these properties. • Recreation ' The "Recreation" category includes lands intended to serve the outdoor recreational needs of the area and region. Within the specific plan area, this designation applies to the Newport ' Beach Golf Course. Provisions contained within this specific plan ensure the long-term maintenance of the golf course as a public recreational facility. ' B. Circulation Plan The Circulation Plan is designed to provide for safe vehicular, equestrian and pedestrian movement within and adjacent to the specific plan area. The area has been heavily impacted by nonresidential traffic attempting to avoid congested conditions on ' surrounding arterials. Thus, a primary consideration in the development of the plan was reduction of through traffic within residential areas. With the development of business park uses within areas adjacent to residential uses, another consideration was the separation of business park and residential traffic. Street improvements SPECIFIC PLAN and modifications intended to achieve these objectives are illustrated in Exhibit 6 and described as follows: Improvement Feature 1: Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive. Improvement Feature 2: Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue. Improvement Feature 3: Construction of a cul-de-sac and improvement of Cypress Street south of South Bristol Street. Improvement Feature 4: Monitoring traffic in the Bayview tract. The County continues to monitor traffic in the Bayview tract but traffic counts have not indicated a significant increase in traffic volumes that would warrant further circulation improvements. If traffic counts do show a significant increase in traffic volumes, a circulation improvement test program to study and develop a method to control any potential through traffic in the Bayview tract will be reviewed and implemented. The program's objective would be development of an optimal solution, one that minimizes through traffic along Mesa Drive and in the Bayview tract without significantly inconveniencing a large number of residents. The test program methodology will include extensive monitoring of traffic before any improvements are installed and then systematic monitoring of a variety of test alternatives. Each alternative would involve installation of temporary improvements for a period of possibly thirty days. The alternatives to be tested could include: 1) a cul-de-sac at the north end of Orchid Street, 2) the closure of Spruce Avenue, 3) closure of the north end of Orchid Street and the south end of Bayview Avenue and 4) the closure of both Spruce and Bayview Avenues just north of Azure Street to northbound traffic in tandem with the Orchid Street cul-de-sac. Other alternatives might be tested in addition to or in lieu of those mentioned above. The community would be consulted both before and after the program is implemented. Both traffic engineering criteria and community input would be considered in evaluating the results of the program. 11-3 The Plan ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Improvement Feature 5: Realignment of the intersection at ' Mesa Drive and Acacia Street. The Acacia Street intersection with Mesa Drive will be improved to make a T-intersection with the realignment of Mesa Drive/Birch Street (Feature 7) for improved sight distance. Improvement Feature 6: Construction of a cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Orchard Drive within the western portion of Santa Ana Heights and vacation of remaining right-of-way. Improvement Feature 7: Realignment of Birch Street/Mesa ' Drive and roadway improvements. These improvements will widen Birch Street to an 80 foot right-of-way south of Bristol Street and connect Birch Street to Irvine Avenue by incorporation of a section of Mesa Drive. Improvement Feature 8: Additional right-of-way and pavement width on the Business Park streets 70 foot total right-of-way for ' Acacia Street, 70 foot right-of-way for Orchard Drive east of Birch Street, and 80 foot total right-of-way for Birch Street. Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to the realigned portion of Birch Street will also be increased to an 80 foot right-of-way. These circulation improvements are to be implemented in a phased manner to best achieve the plan's objectives. Implementation of ' Improvement Features 1, 3, and 4 have been given priority because they are designed to provide an early reduction or elimination of through and business park traffic in residential neighborhoods. ' Improvement Features 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are complete. For Improvement Feature 4, traffic continues to be monitored. Improvement Feature 8 is currently being designed and will be implemented when the required right-of-way has been acquired. Funding possibilities for these improvements include the Orange County Development Agency, an assessment district or developer contribution. ' C. Public Services/Utilities Plan The Public Services/Utilities Plan addresses the adequacy of existing water, sewer and drainage facilities to meet existing and ultimate The Plan 11-4 demand and identifies those public works facility improvements needed to implement the Land Use Plan. The public works improvements recommended are based on a computer analysis which took into account ultimate buildout of the specific plan area, Orange County fire flow requirements and other design criteria. The proposed upgrading of facilities is required to eliminate deficiencies which will be created once the Specific Plan is implemented. Some relocation of facilities is necessary due to proposed realignments of street rights -of -way. Specific proposals for the improvement and modification of facilities and services are described below. Water Distribution System Improvements The Irvine Ranch Water District presently provides adequate water service to the specific plan area to serve existing land uses. Ultimate development of the area, however, will require 7,400 linear feet of six-inch and eight -inch water mains and additional fire hydrants for fire protection. Planned improvements are shown in Exhibit 7 and are described as follows: Improvement Feature 1: Replacement of 6-inch line with 8-inch line on Irvine Avenue and Acacia Street from South Bristol Street to Mesa Drive. Improvement Feature 2: Installation of 12" water main along South Bristol Street from Irvine Avenue to Spruce Avenue. This project is complete. Improvement Feature 3: Replacement of 4-inch line with 6-inch line from Orchard Drive south along Riverside Drive. WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENT PSANTA ANA HEIGHTSLAN SPECIFIC PLAN INS MEN wl � ��� .,��.��e•�111i111� m ow 13 Will .mw � roe EXHIBIT G II_g NORTH 4 � ®0 Scale3 in Feel SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN I ® Improvement reatme (see test) Santa Ana 1 leighls Specific: flan Boundary 0 CMSD Service Area Bound.uy SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN EXHIBIT 7 II-6 NORTH 4 I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Improvement Feature 4: Replacement of 4-inch line with ' 6-inch line from Orchard Drive south 700 feet along Kline Drive. Improvement Feature 5: Replacement of 6" line with 12" ' line on Birch Street between South Bristol Street and Mesa Drive and the extension of the 12" line west along Mesa Drive to Irvine Avenue has been completed. ' 2. Sewer System Improvements lJ I The Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD) presently provides sewer service to the specific plan area. Various sewer mains in the area are currently flowing at or near capacity. In order to adequately serve ultimate build out, installation of 8,215 linear feet of 10-inch through 18-inch sewer mains and upgrading of two pump stations in the general area will be required. The following improvements (shown in Exhibit 8) have been identified for construction and/or upgrading. Improvement Feature A: Line A, located on the north side of the Santa Ana -Delhi channel, conveys sewer flows from Bristol Street east to Santa Ana Avenue and then continues south along the channel. This main does not convey sewer flows from the specific plan area. Line A is presently 8 inches in diameter and will be expanded to a 10-inch line. Improvement Feature B: South Bristol Flow Reversal. This project is to direct a portion of the sewer flow in the study area from CMSD facilities to the Sanitation Districts of Orange County facilities. This project includes a 12" gravity sewer. Improvement Feature C: Line C, located along the Santa Ana -Delhi channel, conveys sewer flows from the western portion of Santa Ana Heights and the commercial center on Santa Ana Avenue. An 18-inch parallel line is proposed to be installed. SPECIFIC PLAN Improvement Feature D: Pump Station 11 collects sewer flows from various areas of Santa Ana Heights and pumps to Sewer Pump Station 10 (improvement Feature E). Pump Station 11 is proposed for upgrading, to include installation of new pumps and controls, electrical service and remodeling of the existing wet well. Improvement Feature E: Pump Station 10 pumps sewer flows from various areas of Santa Ana Heights to the 24- inch sewer trunkline along Fair Drive (Improvement Feature F) which flows into the CMSD treatment facility. Pump Station 10 is proposed for upgrading, to include installation of new pumps and controls, electrical service and remodeling of the existing wet well. Improvement Feature F: Line F is a 24-inch trunkline located along Fair Drive which transports flows from Pump Station 10 to the CMSD treatment facility. A 15- inch parallel line is proposed to be installed. Improvement Feature G: Area 2 Outfall Sewer Facilities. This project will reduce the flows to Costa Mesa Sanitary District's Tustin Office Avenue Pumping Station. This project is needed to meet the demands for ultimate conditions. The project includes a new pump station at the Bristol/Birch intersection, a gravity sewer, and a new sewer force main in Birch Street across the SR-73 bridge and northerly into Newport Beach. It includes a gravity sewer in Birch Street from SR-73 bridge to MacArthur Boulevard. J 11-7 The Plan SANTA ANA HEIGHTS DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN �� ,.ate �� =Rw • •:w.. sours 4 0 14' 14— �� srnEEr � a � o m rev us - � ylneer � — 113" s II'IYE wwww rww — ORCI[ARD DRIVE m U 1' 3 w • AZ AVE!7 * t G ' � enr rAnx ruce� a L bsEsh— LriJ' 30" -�}- Existing RCI' and Catch liasin 30'1 Reinforced Condole I'ipr(R<'19 Ingnovonlenl ■ 14• Catch 13asin Improvonumt ' F(ifl Improvemenl Aroa (sa• l(-st) Area of I-ocalizerfprainagc Concern EXHIBIT 8 NORTH II-8 o aoo Goo ' Scale in reel RECREATION PLAN Fe) Regional Bikeway F)oo Proposed Regional Bikeway 0 Proposed Local Equestrian Trail ® Local Equestrian Trail ■�� Regional Riding and Biking Trail Proposed Regional Riding and 1-liking Trail Golf Course Proposed County Regional Park SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PI AN EXHIBIT 9 11-9 NORTH 1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 3. Drainage System Improvements In general, the existing storm runoff collection system within the specific plan area is adequate with the exception of areas where proposed circulation realignments and modifications will alter street drainage patterns. The ultimate land use changes and circulation improvements will require the construction of 2,550 linear feet of 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) mains and ' a system of catch basins. Improvements to the existing system are shown in Exhibit 9 and are described as follows with several having been completed: Improvement Area 1: • One 14-foot catch basin at Orchard Drive and Birch Street • 30-inch RCP along Birch Street from Orchard Drive to Mesa Drive • One 7-foot catch basin at Mesa Drive to drain ' southerly • 30-inch RCP from Mesa Drive to Santa Ana -Delhi channel ' Improvement Area 2: '• 30-inch RCP on Cypress Street from Cypress Street cuWe-sac to South Bristol Street • Two 14-foot catch basins at Cypress Street cul-de- sac Improvement Area 3: • One 14-foot catch basin at Orchard Drive cul-de- sac • 18-inch RCP from Orchard Drive cul-de-sac to Santa Ana -Delhi channel Improvement Area 4: • Installation of 1,900 feet of storm drain along Santa Ana Avenue south of Orchard Drive. • Installation of eight (8) catch basins on Santa Ana Avenue. Improvement Area 5: • Installation of an 18" diameter drainage system along Indus Street and Redlands Drive to divert storm water run-off around this area to the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. Improvement Area 6: • Installation of 18" diameter RCP and three catch basins along Bayview Avenue. • Also, installation of storm drain and two catch basins on 250 feet of Orchid Street. A localized drainage problem exists along Birch and Cypress streets south of Orchard Drive. In this area, surface runoff flows from parcels fronting on Cypress Street onto parcels along Birch Street. Ponding of water also occurs on at least one parcel along Birch Street. This drainage situation is a particular concern where business park development is planned to occur along Birch Street. Such development must provide for the transport of runoff from adjacent residential parcels to the drainage facilities planned along Birch Street. The area affected by this drainage problem is highlighted in Exhibit 9, the boundary of which is based on existing topography. I The Plan r SANTA ANA HEIGHTS In order to adequately provide for surface runoff in this area, a comprehensive drainage plan and implementation program must be developed for the area highlighted in Exhibit 9 prior to any business park development within the affected area. Possible drainage solutions which are being considered include the following: • An underground storm drain collection system • A pumping station which collects storm runoff and pumps to an acceptable public storm drain system ' Funding possibilities for these improvements include the Orange County Development Agency, an assessment district or developer contribution. ' 4. Electric, Telephone and Cable Television Improvements r Although not anticipated, the planned improvements and modifications to the circulation system may require utility relocations, realignments or abandonments. rD. Recreation Plan The Recreation Plan is designed to enhance equestrian opportunities r within the specific plan area with appropriate connections between local and regional trail systems. Exhibit 10 identifies those recreational facilities planned within and adjacent to the specific plan r area. Elements of the Recreation Plan are as follows: • A local equestrian trail has been constructed along the west side of Cypress Street from the north end of the street to Mesa Drive. As currently shown on the Recreation Plan, the trail would continue west along the south side of Mesa Drive to just prior to Birch Street, where it turns south to connect with the proposed ' regional trails along Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana - Delhi channel. This local equestrian trail is also planned to extend east along Mesa Drive from Cypress Street to the Irvine Coast Regional Trail. SPECIFIC PLAN Acquisition of an appropriate site for development of a public equestrian center will be studied. Facilities within a center may include box stalls and pipe corrals, arenas, horse rental facilities, parking and staging areas, and other related support facilities, including an office and storage rooms. If a site is acquired by the County, the property would be developed and maintained by a private stable operator under a lease agreement with the County. Regional recreation facilities, either existing or proposed within the general areas, include: two existing golf courses, the Newport Beach Golf Course and Santa Ana Country Club; the existing Irvine Coast Regional Riding and Hiking Trail through Upper Newport Bay, linking the existing trail along San Diego Creek with the proposed Santa Ana Heights Regional Riding and Hiking Trail along the Santa Ana -Delhi channel; an existing bikeway along Irvine Avenue south of University Drive; and proposed bikeways along University Drive and through Upper Newport Bay. The County's Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve will include land adjacent to the State Ecological Reserve. This preserve will complement the Ecological Reserve with more active uses, such as an interpretive center and a pedestrian trail, and will serve as a buffer from adjacent land development. 1 II-11 The Plan Z' =�r3 Yll'? � �s •% ' f y y i i` �• f r �� r+ i i ,Sy � 11 I I 1 I L. A. Introduction The intent of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan design guidelines is to promote a consistent, high quality character of development that will result in the overall enhancement of the aesthetic character of the community. Use of these guidelines in future project approvals will implement these objectives through the careful use of building forms and materials, streetscape concepts, setback and buffer areas and a unifying landscape concept. Combining these elements will provide a sense of identity to the specific plan area and development which will complement existing and surrounding land uses while minimizing business park development impacts to the adjacent REQ District. Consolidation of single lots within the business park area of Santa Ana Heights can provide for more flexibility in the design of office development, thereby enhancing the aesthetic character and cohesiveness of the development. Lot consolidation is encouraged within the business park area through the inherent benefits obtained when developing on larger, consolidated parcels (e.g., the ability to dissolve setbacks along interior lot lines and to design more efficiency into parking areas) which will provide better business park development with fewer driveways and improve the overall community vehicular circulation. B. Architectural Guidelines for Business Park Uses Due to the proximity of the areas designated for business park uses to residential uses, it is the stated objective of the County to provide architectural guidelines for business park uses which will blend in with and complement the residential areas of the community. In order to achieve that goal, the following guidelines will be of prime importance in the consideration of future development proposals. Building Massing/Form Building facades abutting streets shall not have the appearance of excessive massing or bulk. The use of grading techniques and grade changes should be considered in order to minimize mass and bulk of buildings. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Special consideration shall be given architecturally to emphasize pedestrian areas such as entry ways, walkways, and courtyards/plazas (e.g., trellises, low parapet walls, extended roof or patio overhangs). Buildings clustered around a pedestrian area, such as a courtyard/plaza, shall be designed to minimize excessive shading and maximize light exposure. Long, uninterrupted exterior walls shall be avoided on all buildings. For architectural interest, walls shall incorporate relief features including building elements, articulation, window treatment, and negative space to create an interesting blend with the landscaping, other buildings and the casting of shadows. Incorporation of small-scale elements such as planters, installation of mature landscaping and landform manipulation will aid in softening the overall mass of structures. Particular consideration as to color, material, and form shall be given to the design and treatment of roofs because of their potential visual impact. Roof flashing, rain -gutters, downspouts and vents shall be treated to match materials and/or colors of the overall building. All roof equipment shall be screened with materials/colors consistent with the treatment of the building. Utilization of windows and balconies shall be encouraged in order to extend interior space to the outside and to create a visual connection with the exterior setting of courtyard or plaza areas. Useable balconies and unenclosed outside stairwells shall not be used on walls facing the REQ District. Walls and/or fences shall be used to screen utility and maintenance structures/facilities and storage areas. These Community Design Program 9 SAN- TA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN surfaces shall match or be in harmony with the exterior finish of any structure with which they are in contact. • Radical theme structures, signage, building and roof forms shall be discouraged. ' 2. Exterior Building Materials The following shall be used as predominant exterior wall materials throughout the business park area. A combination of these materials is encouraged to soften and add architectural variety and interest to building facades. • Wood. • Brick, stone, rock or other appropriate accent materials. ' Architecturally treated concrete, concrete masonry, and block. These materials are to be painted or integrally colored in tones ranging from whites to earth tones. • Stucco, with a machine applied or smooth finish in natural gray or colors ranging from whites to earth tones. Accent materials and colors shall be coordinated to achieve a continuity of design with the overall structure and surrounding structures. 3. Glazing • The use of glass shall be subdued and in harmony with ' the building and the natural surroundings. Glazing shall be used predominately for the purpose of lighting interior space. Glazing shall not be used as a major architectural element, but may be used as an accent feature to add variety to building facades. Mirrored glazing shall not be used. 4. Building Entrances • Site access, entrance drives and building entries shall be readily observable and inviting to the first-time visitor. • Care shall betaken to provide minimum conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians. • Building entries shall be integrated with overall building form and should be highlighted by such features as: - entry porte-cocheres - inviting pedestrian spaces such as plazas and fountains - special planters and plantings - textured hardscape 5. Building Rooflines • Roofs may be sloped, in a hip, gable, or shed fashion. Flat roofs are permissible provided that the roofing material is concealed by a minimum eighteen (18) inch high parapet all or other approved architectural treatment. • Simulated wood and slate materials, lightweight concrete and tile roofs are encouraged and must meet Building and Fire Code requirements. Highly reflective metal roofing material is prohibited. Asphalt and fiberglass materials are permitted only on flat roofs where screened from view. • In all cases, roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the adjacent streets and adjacent REQ District residences with materials finished to match materials and colors in the roof and building. • Uncovered trash enclosures shall not be located any closer than 40 feet from any property line abutting the 'REQ District and no closer than ten feet from any side Community Design Program SANTA AN'A HEIGHTS 1 6. �l property line and shall not exceed a height of 8 feet maximum abutting the BP District. Energy Considerations Passive solar design orientation is encouraged. Solar collectors, if used, shall be oriented away from public view or designed as an integral element of the roof structure. Sound Attenuation • All interior building areas shall be mitigated for noise, consistent with the Orange County Noise Element. C. Landscape Guidelines Landscape design is a crucial element in achieving a distinctive development character and in blending the development with the existing character of surrounding land uses. This character will be reinforced through the coordinated design and selection of landscape and paving materials and emphasis on special features such as entryways and signage. The overall landscape and buffer plan for the specific plan area is illustrated in Exhibit 11. Guidelines are specified herein for the following landscape components of the plan: ' Streetscape • Entry treatment ' • Buffer design • Parking lot design • Hardscape and street furniture design • Landscape maintenance ' 1. Streetscape Business Park Streetscape - Acacia and Birch Streets, and Orchard Drive Acacia Street, Birch Street and Orchard Drive roadways were originally each designed with two eleven -foot and two thirteen- SPECIFIC PLAN foot travel lanes and a six-foot walkway on either side. Acacia Street (within the Business Park District) is designed with a 70 foot right-of-way with two (2) twelve -foot travel lanes, a twelve - foot median lane, an eight -foot bikeway and a nine -foot parkway that will include a six-foot sidewalk on either side (Exhibit 12). Adjacent to the walkways outside the right-of-way, a ten -foot landscaped setback is required. Should it be appropriate, road dimensions within right-of-way may be modified as needed to accommodate existing structures. Birch Street is now designed with an 80 foot right-of-way and Orchard Drive is designed with a 70 foot right-of-way (Exhibits 12 and 13). Birch Street has the same improvements as Orchard Drive but with the added feature of a ten -foot median/left turn pocket. The streetscape for the business park area will be installed by individual property owners concurrent with development of approved projects. Ongoing maintenance will be the responsibility of individual property owners. The ten -foot landscaped front setback shall be bermed at a 3:1 slope and planted with the designated street tree, Tristania conferta (Brisbane box), in one row, thirty feet on center. All street trees shall be a minimum 24inch box size when installed. Later phases of development must provide trees in sizes comparable to existing trees, or the largest commercially available. To screen parking areas, the remainder of the landscaped setback area shall be planted with a continual massing of shrubs and groundcover using the following plant palettes: Shrubs Hemerocallis spp. Daylily Hebe buxifolia 'coed' 'Hebe' Pittosporum tobira'variegata' Variegated tobira Raphiolepsis indica India hawthorn Agapanthus spp. Lily -of -the -Nile Pittosporum tobira'wheeleri' Dwarf tobira Xylosma congestum Shiny xylosma Trachelospermumiasminoides Star jasmine Community Design Program SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN ' All shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallon. Groundcover Hedera Helix'Hahns' English Ivy Turf is discouraged. Residential Streetscape - Cypress Street The Cypress Street roadway is designed with two twelve -foot travel lanes, eight -foot on -street parking areas on each side of the street and, on the east side of the street, a five -foot -wide sidewalk adjacent to the street. On the west side of the street, a three-foot planted parkway will be located adjacent to the curb ' along with twelve -foot -wide equestrian trail (Exhibit 15). Funding for implementation of the streetscape along Cypress Street may be through an assessment district, the Orange County Development Agency or some other future funding source. The surface of the equestrian trail shall be one of the following: '0 Compacted decomposed granite • Existing soil, graded -and compacted Driveways crossing the trail shall be constructed of a non - slippery surface. A three and one -half -foot high split rail fence shall be installed on both sides of the equestrian trail the ' integrity of the trail shall be maintained by new development. Residential Streetscape - Mesa Drive The Mesa Drive roadway is planned with the same design features as Cypress Street, with an equestrian trail on the south side of the street and a pedestrian sidewalk on the north side. Exhibit 15 illustrates the typical section for Cypress Street and Mesa Drive east of Birch Street. Funding for implementation of the streetscape may be through an assessment district, the Orange County Development Agency or some other future funding source. Residential Streetscape - Orchard Drive The Orchard Drive roadway is designed with two (2) twelve - foot travel lanes and eight -foot on -street parking areas on each side of the street. A ten -foot planted parkway will be located on the north side of the street. On the south side of the street, a ten -foot planted parkway provided with a meandering four -foot sidewalk. Funding for implementation of the streetscape within the residential area of Orchard Drive may be through an assessment district, the Orange County Development Agency or some other future funding source. The streetscape improvements within the business park area will be installed -by individual property owners concurrent with development of approved projects. The ten -foot landscaped parkways shall be planted with the designated street tree, Platanus acerifolia (London plane tree), in one row, thirty feet on center. All street trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box when installed. The remainder of the landscaped area shall be planted with Vinca minor groundcover. 2. Entry Treatment Business Park Entry Treatment The primary purpose of entry treatment is the announcement of entry into the specific plan area. For the business park area, special entry treatment will be located at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive and on Birch Street just south of the South Bristol Street intersection (Exhibit 10). The two entry statements should be identical in design in order to reinforce project continuity and identification. These entries may include the following: Landscape elements, including accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover Entry monumentation Pedestrian crossings and signalization, if appropriate ' Community Design Program III-4 LANDSCAPE PLAN/BUFFER DIAGRAM GAf"111311 1V I + nr-+— m1 �- III-5 +-�-+-+ISIOL SANTA ANA HEIGHTS arv-k-Irll.- PLAIN NORTH 4 TYPICAL SECTION ACACIA STREET SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPFCIFIC PI AN 70! ROW 52• PAVED 10, g• g• 12_ r 127 12• L g 10' PARK ` WAY V �• I Ir U i �t1• .'1 �• w t O I tr , y I', ••,�"' : ^fir • +t' • Z ° ,.,.., ��:. `^_�� ,. a 00 a -/4i •nr �„fG>;n'.i: ..- n C.I. • �rT,. �T6a?+TF:R�i � I� . � a � o a• � :u �il.� n � rrtfT,11iitGTli � i i- 1 Z 1 L-Xtlllfll 11 • 111-6 TYPICAL SECTION' BIRCH STREET AND MESA DRIVE (West of Birch Street) SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 80, now 66' PAVED 10' 10'* 6' 5' 12' 12' 12' 12' 5' 6' 10, k r f SIDE TALIq 1 0 U: -' of a i,Lk °.; l Y '. - . fD l - V . � r ... .-. ... r ,..:.. F,� 57:,� .rs.,rs nl. t:l.•noiTi.•rn:. pru .v ••.. r a:..£lx•..r.a� � u., r ..•TTi ���qc•.a'.. Ir�.� ..:.,..r. l .�@- -.,.. .. n.vl EXHIBIT 12 III-7 TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH ORCHARD DRIVE (in the Business Park District) SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CPF!'ICI!' DI AAI 70' Row 58' PAVED 10' G' 5' 12' • 12' 12' 12' 5• G' 10, -A. �11 v a SIDE YALI Ism lift ft j 00 • .. • / ��• , .:iw •pn P•dlw. •ryp v,..11iA.4�R4. ,.5. 11441pg1 i�"'fin tlV`• t: l�.i Ct11I311 13 III-8 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TYPICAL SECTION ACACIA STREET CPFrlrlr D1 nwi :Arl•ul l ai ... ram... .�.. . ..11i. 70' ROW 52' PAVED 10' 9' 8' 12' PARK +� \��'`� `1 X WAY q►14. un wn 010 % Irk htA�t1 ' L i w t- • cn l i p i 'SirJ' i' ID:: l\' 1'I b.i�•:.'.1+"'-.(1 �T. •i ., n l ii �i . t n �• 'ii `i a i i w.: i l i i f�.l 1 111-9 i i I LJ SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Recommended plant materials for the business park entryways include the following: Arrant Trppc Cupaniopsis Anacardioides Carrotwood (multi -trunk) Erythrina caffra Coral tree (multi -trunk) Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (multi -trunk) All accent trees shall be a minimum 24inch box size when installed. Shrubs Hemerocallis spp. Hebe buxifolia'coed' Pittosporum tobira'variegata Raphiolepsis indica Bougainvillea spp. Agapanthus spp. Abelia grandiflora Photinia fraseri Pittosporum tobira'wheeleri' Xylosma congestum Trachelospermum iasminoides Dodonea viscosa 'purpurea' Daylily Hebe Variegated tobira India hawthorn Bougainvillea Lily -of -the -Nile Glossy abelia Photinia Dwarf tobira Shiny xylosma Star jasmine Hop seed bush All shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallon. Groundcover Hedera Helix'Hahns' English Ivy Gazania spp. Gazania ' Community Design Program 111-10 Building materials to be used for entry monumentation include the following: • textured concrete. • wood • stone • masonry • brick Residential Entry Treatment For the residential areas, entry treatment will be located on Orchard Drive between Birch and Cypress streets and at the intersection of Mesa Drive and Acacia Street (Exhibit 11). These entries should be identical in design and reflect a more residential character in landscaping and signage, clearly delineating to business park users the entrance to a residential neighborhood. These entries may incorporate the following: • Landscape elements, including accent trees, shrubs and groundcover • Entry monumentation • Pedestrian crossings, if appropriate Recommended plant materials for the residential entryways include the following: Accent Trees Melaleucaguinguenervia Cajeput tree Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda (multi -trunk) Liquidambar stvraciflua American sweet gum Callistemon citrinus Lemon bottlebrush All accent trees shall be a minimum 24inch box size when installed. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Shrubs Hemerocallis spp. Hebe buxifolia 'coed' Pittosporum tobira'variegata' Raphiolepsis indica Bougainvillea spp. Agapanthus spp. Abelia-grandiflora Photinia fraseri Pittosporum tobira'wheeleri' Xvlosma congestum Trachelospermum iasminoides Dodonea viscosa 'purpurea' Daylily Hebe Variegated tobira India hawthorn Bougainvillea Lily -of -the -Nile Glossy abelia Photinia Dwarf tobira Shiny xylosma Star jasmine Hop seed bush ' All shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallon. Groundcover ' Hedera Helix'Hahns' English Ivy Gazania spp. Gazania ' 3. Buffer Design Along all property lines where business park uses abut residential uses, a three -foot -wide landscape buffer shall be ' required in order to screen and soften views from existing residential uses to business park uses. The concept for planting the buffer areas will consist of a dense planting of trees and ' shrubs incorporating both low and high vertical elements. These elements will be combined with a six -foot -high opaque wall at the property line in order to achieve the desired effect (Exhibit 16). The planting will consist of evergreen trees and shrubs and will include the following: I Trees Pinus canariensis PodocarDns aracilier Cypress leylandii Cupaniopsis anacardioides Pittosporum undulatum Pinus Halepensis SPECIFIC PLAN Canary Island pine Fern Pine Cypress Carrotwood tree Victoria box Aleppo pine A minimum of one (1) 24" boxed trees planted at 15 feet on center in the buffer area, with adequate infill landscaping of approved shrubs and ground cover. Shrubs Hemerocallis spp. Daylily Hebe buxifolia'coed' Hebe Pittosporum tobira'variegata' Variegated tobira Raphiolepsis indica India hawthorn Bougainvillea spp. Bougainvillea Agapanthus spp. Lily -of -the -Nile Abelia grandiflora Glossy abelia Photinia fraseri Photinia Pittosporum tobira'wheeleri' Dwarftobira Xvlosma congestum Shiny xylosma Trachelospermum iasminoides Starjasmine Dodonea viscosa 'purpurea' Hop seed bush All shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallon Groundcover* Gazania spp. Gazania Hedera Helix'Hahns' English Ivy *Heavy planting is recommended to screen views. I11-11 Community Design Program �1 BUSINESS PARK/RESIDENTIAL EQUESTRIAN [SUFFER DESIGN i 1 YI ,(1 I `'aP elslrlcT ' 'jai' vls-rn+ar� uNIT9. 15Y _ \ ar�o fxvue Cv4�Ss 7-aa� - ePr1"xe�' r1u�11 Pcr71-I G.p � �, Ij'�x A�'xlel �-Su,M1a IdR•gy� r!7[Op:�lalY lol!' symrGD Dt,,cK RUIJNINq LolJt7 1-lElD, 41nyL_5fE(Zlllb �,12��12(m_ Ifb41 UlT6FYnLY [T \ ` ? MJ<rso �ab" I•lor.n•Icdolu f -\ "� / f'Eh SfRUGNFR.^�L �PAJI�C.1.191fS -�- -• •• - rl . s1Rr•, .11vf ", e+ au.nry Oy S- Mlcruf,.L- TVcV Tw-J 7o Owlµ !" 15U' l M6 S9 rAM1K S:IbE. rLITEryNL,'To t-wr�,i t5u9jmm c9 rr-rx px VFt-r I:, 1AOVRErh 6RE 12 n1't-IkM OF' pk IlfM.c/"F-p T15S P111wI opt w 7b Tit ftc^R 1-EIe :a•[Grlc -LrtJ / RTIGLB llc.r 11nTllr- i, Or-n - Vill EpE cr,-ufy Yo nMl Tor - GGe IJ rRIc' fXor6p IY Ll"IE —_— Mort"IL7�fl"� OEPV,IN rrR S,wv TURnLRffaIUiw-mat1rs, .IIOL: 'rjll�l t7m r^1,- l • rotes FryM5N pUFro�m o11Vf PROPERTY LINE WALL DETAIL ' EXHIBIT 15 III-12 10 BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY SANTA AN•A I- I'GMS CPrrlrl!' oI Awl [I SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 11 n F 4. Parking Lot Design Within parking areas, trees shall be provided at a minimum ratio of one tree per four parking stalls. Planting islands shall be located not less than every eight parking stalls. The planting islands shall be a minimum of three feet wide and equal in length to the parking space it abuts (Exhibit 17). Landscaping in parking lot areas is to be protected by a curb at least six inches in height. Recommended plant materials include the following Trees Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput tree Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red iron bark Eucalyptus ficifolia Red -flowering gum Cupaniopsis anacardiodes Carrotwood tree Shrubs ' Hemerocallis spp. Hebe buxifolia'coed' Pittosporum tobira'variegata' Raphiolepsis indica ' Bougainvillea spp. Agapanthus spp. ' Abelia grandiflora Photinia fraseri Pittosporum tobira'wheeleri' Xylosma congestum ' Trachelospermum iasminoides Dodonea viscosa 'purpurea' I Daylily Hebe Variegated tobira India hawthorn Bougainvillea Lily -of -the -Nile Glossy abelia Photinia Dwarf tobira Shiny xylosma Star jasmine Hop seed bush Alf shrubs shall be a minimum size of five gallon. SPECIFIC PLAN Groundcover Gazania spp. Gazania Hedera Helix'Hahns' English Ivy S. Hardscape and Street Furniture Design Hardscape and street furniture design elements incorporated into the overall design theme for development in the specific plan area shall include, but not be limited to: walls and fences, paving, light fixtures, bollards, benches, trash receptacles and planters. Hardscape and street furniture elements will function to allow a coordinated and consistent visual and physical connection between buildings and landscape materials within the specific plan area. Building materials to be used as key hardscape elements are specified below. All materials utilized for walls, fences, paving, lighting and street furniture shall be coordinated with and be complementary to architectural design details and materials. a. Walls and fences • Concrete masonry: integral color, 4" coursing maximum • Brick: either red or in earth tones • Concrete: Textured, bush -hammered, rock salt, sandblasted, integral color in earth tones • Wrought iron (as accents) • Stucco: integral or painted color (same as building stucco color or approved alternative) 1 III-13 Community Design Program BUSINESS PARK PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPTS p _ /��_T. i 11 y7. TYPICAL BUSINESS PARK PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE L'XNIISI-f 16 111-14 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CPFCIFI!' PI API TYPICAL BUSINESS PAI:K S1 RLL'I_SCAPL ri b. Paving within project and individual site entries (outside public right-of-way) • Concrete: integral color, rock salt, exposed aggregate finish with brick or wood edges, or stamped concrete Paving brick: in earth tones • Paving brick tile: in earth tones • Textured concrete: in earth tones • Precast rough -textured pavers: integral color Precast rough -textured pavers: integral color • Quarry tile: in earth tones • Rough textured granite • River washed stones/cobblestones • Asphalt: Use of asphalt with the above noted materials as accent features is encouraged. C. Lighting Fixtures The following lighting elements may be incorporated into site plans for individual development proposals: • Parking light standards '0 Pedestrian pathways (bollard lights) • Pedestrian plaza/courtyards (bollard lights) • Landscape lighting d. Miscellaneous Hardscape SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN • Miscellaneous hardscape elements include bollards, benches, trash receptacles and planters. All of these elements shall be designed and located so as to complement and enhance the building. 6. Landscape Maintenance All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the following: • All planting areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. • Lawn and groundcovers shall be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. • All plantings shall be kept in a healthy and growing condition. • Fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning shall be carried out as part of regular maintenance. • Irrigation systems shall be kept in working condition. Adjustment and cleaning of system shall be a part of regular maintenance. • Stakes, guys and ties on trees shall be checked regularly for correct function; ties shall be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. • Damage to plantings created by vandalism, automobile or acts of nature shall be corrected within thirty (30) days. 1 III-15 Community Design Program SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ' SPECIFIC PLAN 1 1 1 H 0 1 7 J 1 1 1 Land Use District Regulations i 0 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS A. PURPOSE AND INTENT ' The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan district regulations are adopted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Orange County and of the future residents of this specific plan area. These ' regulations are intended to provide the standards, criteria and procedures necessary to implement each element of the Orange County General Plan applicable to this area as more specifically interpreted and explained in this specific plan. B. DEFINITIONS Except as otherwise specified below, the meaning and construction of words, phrases, titles and terms used in this specific plan shall be the same as provided in Zoning Code sections 7-9-21 through 7-947. ' 1. Commercial Kennel: Any property where four (4) or more dogs, or four (4) or more cats, over the age of four (4) months, are kept or maintained for the purpose of financial gain, except veterinary clinics and hospitals. 2. Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the ' Uniform Building Code and other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet 1 rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces. ' 3. Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor living area is a term used to define spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise -sensitive uses. Such ' spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc., associated with residential uses. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, maintenance ' areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses. I SPECIFIC PLAN C. GENERAL PROVISIONS All construction and development within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the various related mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes, the Grading and Excavation Code and the Subdivision and Sign Codes, as currently adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. In case of a conflict between the specific provisions of any such code and this specific plan, the Director, PDSD shall determine which regulations are applicable. 2. All building sites shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Code section 7-9-126, Building Site Requirements. 3. If an issue, condition or situation arises or occurs that is not sufficiently covered or provided for so as to be clearly understandable, those regulations of the Zoning Code that are applicable for the most similar use, issue, condition or situation shall be used by the Director, PDSD as guidelines to resolve the unclear issue, condition or situation. This provision shall not be used to permit uses or procedures not specifically authorized by this specific plan. 4. All conditions, requirements and standards, indicated graphically or in writing as a part of any discretionary permit approved in compliance with these regulations shall have the same force and effect as these regulations. Any use or development established as a result of such approved permit but not in compliance with all approved conditions shall be in violation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan and subject to Zoning Code section 7-9-154. 5. If any portion of these regulations is, for any reason, declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or ineffective, in whole or in part, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have enacted these regulations and each portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more portions be declared invalid or ineffective. H W-1 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 6. Any person, firm, or corporation, whether a principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating any provisions of these regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the ' County jail of Orange County for a term not exceeding six (6) months or by both fine and imprisonment. Such person, firm, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this specific plan is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, firm, or corporation and shall be punishable as ' herein provided. Enforcement of these regulations shall be per Zoning Code section 7-9-154. 7. Zoning Code section 7-9-111, Sign Restrictions District ' Regulations, shall apply throughout the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area, except within the BP "Business Park" District. 8. All new or entirely reconstructed structures with habitable rooms (e.g., dwelling units, hotels, motels, convalescent homes and hospitals) shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the structure, so as not to exceed a standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. In conjunction with this construction, all associated outdoor living areas shall be sound attenuated, if necessary, against present and projected highway noise so as not to exceed a standard of 65 dB CNEL. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for such development, an Acoustical Analysis Report describing the sound attenuation measures required to satisfy the noise standards shall be prepared by a County -certified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Manager, Building Permit Services for approval. The report shall include satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound attenuation measures have been incorporated into the design of ' the project. Land Use District Regulations IV-2 Except for single family detached dwelling units, all common walls and windows/doors shall be provided in compliance with Title 25 regulations and approved by the Manager, Building Permit Services. 9. All nonresidential structures identified in the Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in those documents. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence prepared by a County -certified acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a, manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted to the Manager, Building Permit Services in the form of an Acoustical Analysis Report describing in detail the exterior noise environment and the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard and which indicate that the sound attenuation measures specified have been incorporated into the design of the project. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a structure that penetrates the 100:1 Notice Surface pursuant to FAR Part 77.13, the project applicant shall submit a "Notice of Proposed Construction" to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which will initiate an Aeronautical Study of the project by the FAA. Upon completion of the FAA Aeronautical Study, the project applicant shall submit -evidence to the Manager, Building Permit Services, that restrictions and conditions, if any, imposed on the project by the FAA have been incorporated into the design of the project. LAND USE DISTRICT MAP fill) I Planned Development ® Open Space/Recreation Residential Equestrian ® Residential Kennel Residential Single Ealnlly ® Residential Multiple family 1 " " U I lorticullural Nurscry C� General Commercial DP Business Park FP—A—j Professional and Administrative Offir e Flyir-1 Professional, Administrative and Commjerc ial (-onsulid:Niun 1Nn Conunrrcial Stable aqCommercial Nursery SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PI Am AOuI`Im 11CIe,j, IS, ne! I1RSI MIIII9l11/1.NMClI Io, 19C1 Iu0 MIInIp0 011-11.1111 R {. 1999 IR"M11110111 MAY It. 1991 Lsan)� Minimum Area Ile(' Unit (7j Minimum Buildinl; Site (Acres) ...9II1,11 11 tv-s NORTII II 1_1I li 1 L� I H SANTA ANA HEIGHTS TYPICAL SECTION SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY BP PROPERTY LINE District LINE 5' S' 20' 75' REQ District } J 2Q zQ Y z BUILDING m N 30' MAX. o STRUCTURE , <`+ HEIGHT" e Co STREET o Required 10' Selback NOTES: BUILDING HEIGHT FIFTEEN (15) FEET MAXIMUM OR SLOPING UP TO EIGHTEEN (18) FEET MAXIMUM INTHE FIRST TWENTY (20) FEET, MEASURED FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. — BUILDING HEIGHT THIRTY (30) FEET MAXIMUM FOR STRUCTURES LOCATED LESS THAN SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY ABUTTING THE REQ DISTRICT. Exhibit 18 IV-4 D. DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. OSR "Open Space/Recreation" District a. Purpose and Intent The OSR District is established to ensure the long-term use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal use is permitted: (a) Local and buffer greenbelts. (2) The following principal use is permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (a) Public1private utility buildings and structures. (3) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (a) Golf courses. (b) Outdoor commercial recreation. C. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Detached buildings. (2) Fences and walls. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (3) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111, except no business signs. No sign shall exceed six (6) square feet in area unless otherwise provided for by an approved site development permit or use permit. (4) Rest rooms. (5) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. d. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by sections b and c above. e. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. One (1) acre minimum. (2) Building height. Eighteen (18) feet maximum unless otherwise provided for by an approved use permit. (3) Building setbacks. Twenty (20) feet minimum from all property lines. (4) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (5) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the premises. I I IV-5 Land Use District Regulations �1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 2. REQ "Residential Equestrian" District a. Purpose and Intent The REQ District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of a single family residential neighborhood in conjunction with limited equestrian uses. A rural character with an equestrian theme shall predominate. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses are permitted: (a) Single family dwelling or single family mobile home per Zoning Code section 7-9- 149.5 (one per building site). (b) Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. (c) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (noncommercial). (d) Riding and hiking trails. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Communication transmitting, reception, or relay facilities. (b) Public1private utility buildings and structures. (3) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: Land Use District Regulations (a) Fire and police stations. (b) Churches, temples, and other places of worship. (c) Educational institutions. (d) Libraries. (4) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temporary Uses Permitted The following temporary uses only, per Zoning Code section 7-9-136: (1) Continued use of an existing building during construction of a new building. (2) Mobile home residence during construction. d. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Garages and carports. (2) Swimming pools. (3) Fences and walls. I I IV-6 i P 11 (4) Patio covers. (5) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111. Six (6) square feet of sign area maximum unless otherwise provided for by an approved site development permit or use permit. (6) Home occupations per Zoning Code section 7-9- 146.6. (7) The keeping of the following animals for the recreational enjoyment of persons residing on the same building site, subject to the noted restrictions: (a) Any animal if kept exclusively within the residence. (b) Horses and ponies, limited to the following (offspring exempt up to the age of eight (8) months): Size of Building Site (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Number Permitted Less than 10,000 1 10,000 to 15,000 2 Greater than 15,000 3 to 6 with Recreational Horse Permit* • Recreational Horse Permifsshallbeprocessedper sttYion g ofthis urnnisi (c) Goats, sheep, pigs and cows only on building sites greater than 15,000 square feet in size and limited to: a) no more than two (2) adult animals of any one species per building site and b) no more than a total of six (6) adult animals, including horses and ponies, per building site. Offspring are exempt until such time as they are weaned. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (d) Rabbits, chickens and ducks, limited to no more than a total of six (6) of such animals per building site. (e) Up to three (3) dogs and three (3) cats. Offspring are exempt up to the age of four (4) months. The keeping of four (4) or more dogs or four (4) or more cats over the age of four (4) months is also permitted subject to obtaining an animal permit per section 4-1- 76 of the Health, Sanitation, and Animal Regulations. W Minimum setbacks for the keeping of animals shall be as follows: From Ultimate Street Right Way line ffmrn Property Line Abultinj REQ or BP Districts From Property Line Ahuttm RE Districts Front SLd. Side Rear Side Rear All structures housing animals (i e., corrals, stalls, pens, ages, doghouse ) 50 20 25 25 S. S. Exerciseareas 25 10 0 0 0 0 ' Required for covered portions ofstmctures only (8) Second living unit, attached or detached, in conformance with Zoning Code Section 7-9-146.5, subject to the approval of a use permit. (9) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this District. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by sections b through d above. IV-7 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (2) The storage of vehicles, equipment, or products related to commercial activities not permitted in this district. ' (3) The keeping of animals for any commercial purpose, except per the Commercial Stable (S) District, where applicable. 1 (4) Commercial kennels. (5) Apiaries. ' (6) Aviaries. f. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Nineteen thousand and eight hundred (19,800) square feet minimum. (Minimum site area does not apply to parcels in existence prior to October, 1986. (2) Building height. Thirty five (35) feet maximum. Roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall not be visible from any existing dwelling unit located ' three hundred (300) feet or less from the subject building site. (3) Building setbacks. (a) Front setback. Twenty (20) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Five (5) feet minimum. (c) Rear setback. Twenty-five (25) feet ' minimum. (4) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (5) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the ' premises. Land Use District Regulations IV-8 g. Recreational Horse Permit Within the REQ District, most lots are relatively small (less than one-half acre), very narrow (66 feet wide) and surrounded by existing tract housing, existing retail commercial uses and proposed business park development. Due to the unique size and configuration of these lots and their close proximity to more urbanized uses, it is necessary to require a Recreational Horse Permit for the noncommercial keeping of horses and ponies for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses. It is the intention of the County to provide for annual inspections of such equestrian facilities by all pertinent authorities, including Vector Control, Animal Control, Environmental Health, Regulation Enforcement and others, as necessary, to ensure that the regulations set for the below are being properly implemented. All regulations associated with Recreational Horse Permits, except provisions pertaining to escapes of animals, shall be enforced by the Director, PDSD, or his designee. Property owners or tenants keeping more than two (2) horses and/or ponies, over the age of eight (8) months, on a single building site within the REQ District shall obtain an annual Recreational Horse Permit approved by the Director, PDSD. After one year of the effective date of these regulations, any property owner or tenant introducing or adding horses and/or ponies onto properties within the REQ District shall, within one month, obtain a Recreational Horse Permit if the total number of such animals, over the age of eight (8) months, exceeds two (2). The Director, PDSD shall issue a permit for the keeping of such animals upon receipt of the fee established by the Board of Supervisors, if any, and when, in his opinion, 1) such animals are being kept or maintained without endangering the safety and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood, and 2) the property owner or tenant has complied with the regulations of the REQ District. Failure to comply with these regulations or any conditions imposed by the SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Director, PDSD shall constitute cause for denial or revocation of such permit. Any person whose application 1 for a Recreational Horse Permit is denied or revoked under the terms of this specific plan may appeal the decision of the Director, PDSD to the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 5-2-19 of the Business and Special Licenses Regulations. Recreational Horse Permits shall be non- transferable and must be renewed annually. The following regulations shall apply: a. Property owner or tenant shall initiate and maintain a program of proper manure management. ' Property owner or tenant shall provide for the daily collection of manure from in and around corrals and access areas. Manure shall be stored in covered containers. In no case shall manure be permitted to remain in any container for a period exceeding seven (7) days. ' b. A program on continuous dust control of the entire premises shall be provided. A method for light watering of arenas and exercise areas shall be maintained. In lieu of watering, chemical control of dust may be permitted. C. There must be adequate and effective means of control of insects and rodents and such control must be vigorously maintained at all times. All dry grains and pellets shall be stored in rodent -proof ' containers (i.e., well -sealed and preferably metal containers). Hay shall be stored on a raised ' platform that maintains a minimum six (6) inch clearance above the surrounding area. d. Combustible materials and/or solutions shall be ' maintained a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from all residential structures and structures housing animals. SPECIFIC PLAN e. Property owner or tenant shall allow no animal to constitute or cause a hazard, or to be a menace to the health, safety, or peace of the community. Property owner or tenant shall keep all animals in such manner as may be prescribed to protect the animals from the public and the public from the animals. Property owner or tenant shall make every reasonable effort to recapture every animal that escapes. Escapes of animals wherein the recapture of the animal can not be immediately accomplished shall be reported to the Director of Animal Control, Health Care Agency. g. Single family residences built after January 1, 2000 and all homes being remodeled and/or repaired at a cost of more than 25% of the value of the existing residence shall not place dumpsters in the front setback area of the building site. Dumpsters shall be effectively screened from view from the right of way with appropriate screening material, i.e., block wall or wood fencing to be a minimum height to completely screen the container. IV-9 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN f. 3. RK "Residential Kennel" District a. Purpose and Intent The RK District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of a neighborhood, which includes single family residences in conjunction with commercial kennel businesses. ' b. Principal Uses Permitted ' (1) The following principal uses are permitted: (a) Single family detached dwelling or single family mobile home per Zoning Code ' section 7-9-149.5 (one per building site). (b) Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care ' homes. ' (c) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (noncommercial). (d) Riding and hiking trails. ' (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Communication transmitting, reception, or relay facilities. (b) Publidprivate utility buildings and structures. 0 (3) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (a) Commercial kennels when in conjunction with a single family residence on the same building site and subject to obtaining an animal facility license per section 5-1-29 of the Business and Special Licenses Regulations. (4) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temporary Uses Permitted The following temporary uses only, per Zoning Code section 7-9-136: (1) Continued use of an existing building during construction of a new building. (2) Mobile home residence during construction. it. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Garages and carports. (2) Swimming pools. Land Use District Regulations IV-10 I i (3) Fences and walls. i(4) Patio covers. (5) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111. (7) iSix (6) square feet of sign area maximum unless otherwise provided for by an approved site idevelopment permit or use permit. (6) Home occupations per Zoning Code section 7-9- i 146.6. (7) The keeping of only the following animals for the recreational enjoyment of persons residing on the isame building site, subject to the noted restrictions: (a) Any animal if kept exclusively within the iresidence. (b) Up to three (3) dogs and three (3) cats. Offspring are exempt up to the age of four (4) i months. The keeping of four (4) or more dogs or four (4) or more cats over the age of four (4) months is also permitted subject to obtaining an animal permit per section 4-1- i 76 of the Health, Sanitation and Animal Regulations. iAll accessory structures housing animals shall be located in compliance with Zoning Code section 7- 9-137. Zoning Code section 7-9-146.3 shall not iapply within this district. (8) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose i and intent of this district. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by section b through d above. (2) The storage of vehicles, equipment, or products related to a commercial activity not permitted in this district. (3) Apiaries. (4) The keeping of animals, except dogs and cats, other than in the residence. f. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Eight thousand (8,000) square feet minimum. (2) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (3) Building setbacks, except for commercial kennels. (a) Front setback. Twenty (20) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Five (5) feet minimum. (c) Rear setback. Twenty-five (25) feet minimum. (4) Commercial kennel facilities shall be located per Zoning Code section 7-9-137. (5) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (6) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the premises. IV-11 Land Use District Regulations ! ! ! k ! ! SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN g. Special Regulations (1) An amendment to a valid use permit or certificate of use and occupancy for a commercial kennel shall be approved administratively by the Director, PDSD as a changed plan, per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 and shall not require an Acoustical Analysis Report as per section (2) below, if the following applies: (a) The proposed change does not increase the overall size of the facility by more than 10% from that shown on the current plot plan; (b) The proposed change does not increase the number of dog runs from that shown on the current plot plan; (c) The proposed change does not intensify any accessory uses (e.g., grooming parlor, sale of pet supplies, training classes) allowed by the current permit-and,does not provide for any additional accessory uses; (d) The proposed change is consistent with the setback standards in Zoning Code section 7- 9-137; and (e) The proposed change satisfies the required findings in Zoning Code section 7-9-150. (2) For all new commercial kennels or for structural modifications to existing kennel facilities requiring a use permit, an Acoustical Analysis Report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the noise generating potential of the proposed project and proposed attenuation measures to assure compliance with Orange County Codified Ordinance, Division 6 (Noise Control). The report shall be prepared by a County -certified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Manager, Building Permit Services, for review and approval. The approved attenuation features shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of the project. ! Land Use District Regulations IV-12 4. RSF "Residential Single Family" District a. Purpose and Intent The RSF District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of medium density single family detached residential neighborhoods. Only those uses are permitted that are complementary to and can exist in harmony with such a residential neighborhood. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses are permitted: (a) Single family detached dwellings or single family mobile homes per Zoning Code section 7-9-149.5 (one per building site). (b) Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. (c) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (noncommercial). (d) Riding and hiking trails. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Communication transmitting, reception, or relay facilities. (b) Public/private utility buildings and structures. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (3) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (a) Fire and police stations. (b) Churches, temples and other places of worship. (4) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a -use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temporary Uses Permitted The following temporary uses only, per Zoning Code section 7-9-136: (1) Continued use of an existing building during construction of a new building. (2) Mobile home residence during construction. d. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Garages and carports. (2) Swimming pools. (3) Fences and walls. I I IV-13 Land Use District Regulations I I I I I 1 1 1 1 t SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (4) Patio covers. (5) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111. Six (6) square feet of sign area maximum unless otherwise provided for by an approved site development permit or use permit. (6) Home occupations per Zoning Code section 7-9- 146.6. (6) Noncommercial keeping of pets and animals weighing less than three hundred (300) pounds and not prohibited in section (e), subject to the following standard. Pens, cages, and other structures specifically for the keeping of animals other than in the residence, shall be located at least twenty-five (25) feet from any residential window located on an adjoining building site. Exceptions to the above may be provided for by a use permit approved by the County Zoning Administrator. (7) Non commercial keeping of horses on land immediately adjacent to the Recreation Equestrian District (REQ) provided that no horse shall be permitted on a building site containing less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land area and pens, cages, and other structures specifically for the keeping of horse shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from and residential window located on an adjoining building site. One (1) or two (2) adult horses are permitted on a building site containing between ten thousand (10,000) and fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of land area. One (1) additional adult horse may be kept for each additional ten thousand (10,000) square feet, with a maximum of six (6) horses on any one building site. The offspring of such animals shall be considered adults when eight (8) months old. Exceptions to the above may be provided for by a Land Use District Regulations IV-14 use permit approved by the County Zoning Administrator. Any nonconforming use of any property within this zone for the maintenance of pets and animals other than those enumerated in this section shall be terminated within one year of the enactment of this section. In any case in which a building in excess of 600 square feet has been erected pursuant to a validly issued permit for maintenance of pets and animals the amortization period of continuation of such use shall be extended for four additional years. (8) Second living unit, attached or detached, in conformance with Zoning Code Section 7-9-146.5, subject to approval of a use permit. (9) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by section b through d above. (2) The storage of vehicles, equipment, or products related to a commercial activity not permitted in this district. (3) The keeping of animals for any commercial purpose unless provided for by an approved use permit. (4) Apiaries. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Seven thousand and two hundred (7,200) square feet minimum except as otherwise identified on the Land Use District map. (2) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. Roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall not be visible from any existing dwelling unit located three hundred (300) feet or less from the subject building site. (3) Building setbacks. (a) Front setback. Twenty (20) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Five (5) feet minimum. (c) Rear setback. Twenty-five (25) feet minimum. (4) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (5) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the premises. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS Cnv! nn n! n• . u Land Use District Regulations ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS ' SPECIFIC PLAN 5. RMF "Residential Multiple Family" District ' a. Purpose and Intent The RMF District is established to provide for the ' development and maintenance of high -density multi- family detached residential neighborhoods with a moderate amount of open space. Only those uses are permitted that are complementary to and compatible with ' such a residential neighborhood. ' b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses are permitted: (a) Multi -family projects of four (4) or less dwelling units. ' (b) Single family dwellings or single family mobile homes per Zoning Code Section 7-9- 149. ' (c) Community care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons and large family day care homes. (d) Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields (noncommercial). ' (e) Riding and hiking trails. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Multi -family projects of five (5) or more ' dwelling units per Zoning Code section 7-9- 146.7. (b) Communication transmitting, reception, or ' relay facilities. Land Use District Regulations IV-16 (c) Public/private utility buildings and structures. (3) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (a) Fire and police stations. (b) Churches, temples and other places of worship. (c) Mobile home parks and subdivisions per Zoning Code Section 7-9-136. (d) Residential condominium, stock cooperative and community apartment project per Zoning Code Section 7-9-147. (4) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7-9-150: (a) Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temporary Uses Permitted The following temporary uses only, per Zoning Code section 7-9-136: (1) Continued use of an existing building during construction of a new building. (2) Mobile home residence during construction. d. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 11 I I 1 11 U 7 u principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Garages and carports. (2) Swimming pools. (3) Fences and walls. (3) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111. Six (6) square feet of sign area maximum unless otherwise provided for by an approved site development permit or use permit. (5) Home occupations per Zoning Code section 7-9- 146.6. (6) Noncommercial keeping of pets and animals per Zoning Code section 7-9-146.3. (8) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by section b through d above. (2) The storage of vehicles, equipment, or products related to a commercial activity not permitted in this district. (3) The keeping of animals for any commercial purpose unless provided for by an approved use permit. SPECIFIC PLAN f. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet minimum. (2) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (3) Area per unit. Three thousand (3,000) square feet minimum net land area per dwelling unit except as otherwise identified on the Land Use District Map or as follows: For those nine (9) parcels in the RMF (2400) District on the private easement known as "Lange Drive" (assessors parcel numbers [as of Jan. 1, 19911439-241-21 through -29) the following area per unit standards shall apply: (a) If all the above parcels are consolidated and developed as a single unified project, then, subject to the approval of a use permit and site development plan by the Planning Commission, the area per unit standard may be decreased to one thousand and five hundred (1,500) square feet. Additionally, a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of units shall be affordable per State Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (b) 2. (b) The maximum density for the parcels listed above shall be one (1) dwelling unit per 2,400 square feet of net building area if consolidation of these parcels does not occur. (4) Distance between principal structures. Fifteen (15) feet minimum. (5) Building setbacks. IV-17 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (a) Front setback. Twenty (20) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Five (5) feet minimum. (c) Rear setback. Twenty-five (25) feet minimum. (6) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (7) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the premises. Land Use District Regulations IV-18 F, II 6. HN "Horticultural Nursery" District a. Purpose and Intent The FIN District is established to ensure the long-term use and viability of the horticultural nursery uses located along Orchard Drive in the western section of Santa Ana Heights. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal use is permitted: (a) Wholesale nurseries. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply): (a) Publidprivate utility buildings and structures. C. Temporary Uses Permitted Temporary uses per Zoning Code section 7-9-136. d. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Detached buildings. (2) Fences and walls. (3) Signs per Zoning Code section 7-9-111, except that no sign shall exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area or be lighted or illuminated. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (4) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by section b through-d above. (2) Retail nurseries. (3) The commercial stockpiling or processing of manure. f. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Twenty-eight thousand (28,000) square feet minimum. (2) Building site width. Seventy (70) feet minimum. (3) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (4) Building setbacks. (a) Front setback. Twenty (20) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Five (5) feet minimum. (c) Rear setback. Twenty-five (25) feet minimum. (5) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. (6) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct rays are confined to the premises. IV-19 Land Use District Regulations i r SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 7. GC "General Commercial" District a. Purpose and Intent The GC District is established to provide regulations for the commercial areas along South Bristol street and to ensure the continuation of commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services to both the surrounding residential and business community. It is intended to promote the upgraded aesthetic image of the community and reduce conflicts between commercial and residential uses. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses shall be permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply): (a) Retail businesses. (b) Service businesses. (c) Professional and administrative offices. (d) Animal clinics and hospitals per Zoning Code section 7-9-146.1. (e) Automobile parking lots and structures per Zoning Code section 7-9-145. (f) Churches, temples, and other places of worship. (g) Civic and governmental uses. (h) Commercial recreation. (i) Communication transmitting, reception or relay facilities. (j) Day nurseries. (k) Financial institutions. (1) Hotels and motels. (m) Copy center. (n) Print shops. (o) Publictprivate utility buildings and structures. (p) Wholesale business offices with samples on the premises but not to include general storage. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply): (a) Retail sale of building materials. (b) Convalescent homes. (c) Hospitals. Mortuaries. (k) Sanitariums, mental and health. (3) Notwithstanding Ordinance Number 3881, the following principals uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150: (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply): L 1 Land Use District Regulations IV-20 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (a) Automobile service stations per Zoning Code (a) Wall signs — Business or identification wall Section 7-9-114. signs shall not exceed one (1) square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage of (b) Milk processing and distributing in the building, or portion thereof, involved. connection with retail dairy outlets. The total aggregate sign area for such signs ' shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) (c) Restaurants subject to the restriction square feet for each business. If the building contained in paragraph (3)e.(8). frontage of any business is less than twenty- five (25) square feet, only one sign, having a (d) Automobile Repair specialty shops except maximum area of (25) feet, shall be where adjacent to the REQ District. permitted for each business. (e) Automobile washing. (b) Monument/ground signs — One (1) business or identification sign, including the (0 Mini -storage facilities. foundation, not exceeding fifty (50) square feet in area or four (4) feet in height may be (g) Any other use which the Planning permitted on each additional street frontage Commission finds consistent with the that is in excess of ninety-nine (99) feet in ' purpose and intent of this district. length. C. Temporary Uses Permitted (c) A business or identification sign, including the foundation, measuring more than fifty Temporary uses per Zoning Code section 7-9-136. (50) square feet in area and/or exceeding four (4) feet in height may be permitted d. Accessory Uses Permitted subject to a site development permit per section 7-9-150 of the Orange County Accessory uses and structures are permitted when Zoning Code. In addition, applications for customarily associated with and subordinate to a signs shall be accompanied by drawings, principal permitted use on the same building site per drawn to scale, indicating the size, sign Zoning Code section 7-9-137, to include: copy, color, method and intensity of illumination, height, sign area, and general (1) Detached buildin &s• location of all signs on the building site. Fences (2) and walls. d. Temporary pole signs — Temporary construction signs, real estate signs, and travel ' (3) The following signs shall be permitted subject to the noted restrictions and per Zoning Code section direction signs are permitted. However, no such sign shall be than feet more sixteen (16) 7-9-111. in height or the following square -feet in area. IV-21 Land Use District Regulations 11 SANTAANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN Construction signs: Thirty two (32) square feet maximum. - Real Estate signs: For residential, building site with four (4) or less units, six (6) square feet. For residential, building site with five (5) or more units, thirty-two (32) square feet. For non-residential, thirty-two (32) square feet. - Travel directional signs: Per Orange County Zoning Code Section 7-9-144. - Residential tract signs: Per section 7-9-136.1(f) of the Orange County Zoning Code. (d) Permanent pole signs — Business and identification pole signs may be permitted subject to a use permit approved by the Zoning Administrator per section 7-9-150 of the Orange County Zoning Code. In addition, applications for signs shall be accompanied by drawings, drawn to scale, indicating the size, sign copy, color, method and intensity of illumination, height, sign area, and general location of all signs on the building site. (e) Sign programs — Multiple building sites that share a common access may develop a sign program per section 7-9-111.6 of the Orange County Zoning Code. (0 Except for signs specifically prohibited below, any sign may be permitted subject to a use permit approved by the Zoning Administrator per section 7-9-150 of the Orange County Zoning Code. (g) The following signs are prohibited: - Outdoor advertising signs. - Roof and projecting signs. - Banner signs. - Electronic message board signs. - Portable signs. - Electronic flashing/bl inking signs. - Rotating signs. (4) Any other accessory uses or structures which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) All uses not permitted by section b through d above. (2) Automobile repair, tire retreading, fender and body repair and paint shops. (3) Automobile wrecking, junk and salvage yards. (4) Bottling plants. (5) Rental and sales agencies for agricultural, industrial and reconstruction equipment. I I Land Use District Regulations IV-22 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS I LJ u r (6) Warehouses, contractors' storage and equipment yards, work and fabricating areas. (7) Welding shops. (8) Drive -through facility or restaurant abutting the REQ District, unless approved prior to September 20, 1996. f. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. Nominimum. (2) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (3) Building setbacks. (a) Front setback. No minimum required. (b) Side setback. No minimum required, except where a side property line abuts a residential district, in which case a minimum setback of ten (10) feet is required. (c) Rear setback. No minimum required, except where a rear property line abuts a residential district, in which case a minimum setback of ten (10) feet is required. A minimum setback of five (5) feet is required adjacent to an alley. (4) Vehicular access regulations. Street openings shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet apart and twenty-two (22) feet from any existing street openings, measured at the ultimate street right-of- way line; however, every building site shall be permitted to have at least one (1) street opening. (5) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9- 145. SPECIFIC PLAN (6) Lighting. All lighting, exterior and interior, shall be designed and located so that direct rays are confined to the premises. (7) Loading. All loading operations shall be performed on the site, and loading areas shall be screened by a landscape or architectural feature. (8) Trash and storage area. All storage of cartons, containers and trash shall be enclosed by a building or by a wall not less than six (6) feet in height. If unroofed, no such area shall be located within forty (40) feet of any residential district. (9) Enclosed uses. All commercial uses and their related products shall be contained entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for parking and loading areas, and except for outdoor uses expressly permitted by an approved site development permit or use permit. (10) Screening. Per Zoning Code Section 7-9-132.1. (11) Buffer Area. A minimum six (6) foot slumped block wall per Exhibit 15 shall be constructed along property lines abutting the REQ District, except within the front setback area, where the height shall be no greater than three and one-half (3-1/2) feet. Landscaping adjacent to this wall shall be in conformance with the guidelines in Chapter III and Exhibit 15, Community Design IV-23 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 8. BP "Business Park" District ra. Purpose and Intent The BP District is established to provide for the ' development and maintenance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses, specific uses related to product development, and limited light industrial uses. Attention shall be given to the protection ' of the adjacent residential uses through regulation of building mass and height, landscape buffers, and architectural design features. b. Principal Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning -Code Section 7-9-150 ' (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply): (a) Professional and administrative offices. (b) Financial institutions. (c) Civic and government uses. (d) Office -serving commercial uses, including restaurants, located within a building primarily devoted to office uses. (e) Public/private utility buildings and structures. (Q . Communication transmitting, reception or relay facilities. ' (g) Blueprinting, reproduction and copying services in conjunction with office use, not to exceed twenty five (25) percent of net ' building floor area. (h) Message, mail and delivery services. (i) Medical and dental offices under 4000 gross square feet. (d) Design merchant showroom. L (2) Notwithstanding Ordinance Number 3881, the following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply). (a) Indoor commercial recreation. (b) Telecommuting center. (c) Research, testing and development laboratories where storage areas do not exceed fifteen (15) percent of net building floor area (d) Any other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temporary Uses Permitted (1) Temporary uses per Zoning Code section 7-9-136. (2) The following temporary uses are permitted subject to approval of a use permit by the Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code Section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply). (a) Commercial coaches serving as temporary office space. Performance Bond. A performance bond in the amount equal to estimated cost for removal of structure shall be posted with the Director, PDSD to guarantee the removal of each commercial coach unit upon expiration of the use permit. ' Land Use District Regulations IV-24 ' SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (b) Commercial Nursery. (d) Trucks and trailers exceeding three tons in gross weight. Performance Bond. A performance bond in the amount equal to estimated cost for (e) Vehicle repair (as a primary use), automobile removal of each temporary structure shall be junk and salvage yards. ' posted with the Director, PDSD, to guarantee the removal of each temporary (f) Any use which would result in conditions or structure upon expiration of the use permit. circumstances contrary to public health, safety and general welfare. (c) Conforming uses shall be permitted in non- conforming structures subject to the approval (5) Time limitation for section Z(a), (b) and (c) of a Use Permit. Such building site shall conform with the parking requirements and above. site development standards contained in the The use permit for the temporary uses shall be Orange County Zoning Code Section 7-9- approved for a maximum of five (5) years from the ' 145 and the site development standards date of final determination. At the end of that time contained in this section. period, the permit shall be reviewed and may be extended from one (1) to five (5) years at the (d) Any other uses which the Zoning discretion of the Zoning Administrator. ' Administrator finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. (6) Site development standards for section 2(a), (b) and ' (3) Removal of temporary use for section 2(a), (b) and (c) above. (c) above. (a) Perimeter wall or fence. An opaque wall or fence six (6) feet for the side property line The temporary use and accessory equipment, and eight (8) feet in height maximum in rear materials and structures shall be removed and the measured from the highest adjacent finished premises cleared of all debris within fourteen (14) grade of the subject site, shall be constructed days of the expiration of the use permit. on side and rear property boundaries ' respectively. For properties lines adjacent to (4) Prohibited uses the REQ District, an eight (8) foot wall shall be required as specified in section f (11) of (a) All uses not permitted by sections (1) and (2) the Business Park District site development above. standards and Exhibit 15. A front wall or fence may be required at the -discretion of ' (b) Storage of hazardous materials. the Zoning Administrator. fence or wall materials and height shall be subject to (c) Underground storage tanks. approval at the discretion of the Zoning ' Administrator, however, open chain link or P IV-25 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN chain link with wooden or plastic slats shall be prohibited. (b) Setbacks. Setbacks for any building, wall, fence or storage area shall be ten (10) feet from any property line abutting a public street. (c) Landscaping. A landscape plan shall be required within the ten (10) foot setback area adjacent to any public street. Landscaping in these areas shall be used to screen buildings, fences, walls or storage areas, which may be visible from a public street. This landscaping shall be consistent with the Community ' Design Program of the Specific Plan (Section IIp. ' (d) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so as to confine direct rays to -the premises. (e) Utility poles and overhead wires. All public utility wires and lines shall be undergrounded within the ten (10) foot setback area adjacent to any public street where undergrounding of utilities exists. Connections to existing utility poles will temporarily be allowed until such time as undergrounding of utilities within the street is implemented. ' (0 All-weather surface. An all-weather surface (e.g., asphalt, concrete or other approved material) at least four inches thick over an ' approved base shall be provided for all storage areas including storage areas for equipment, materials, and vehicles. ' Land Use District Regulations IV-26 (g) Height limit. The height of vehicles, equipment or materials stored on the subject property shall not exceed ten (10) feet and structures and commercial coaches shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet. In all cases, the height of vehicles, equipment, materials, structures and commercial coaches shall not exceed six (6) feet if within ten (10) of the perimeter wall or fence. N Hours of operation. Any commercial operation shall occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM to be compatible with surrounding land uses. d. Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site per Zoning Code Section 7-9-137, to include: (1) Automobile parking structures, in compliance with the site development standards in Section f below. (2) Other detached buildings. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Signs per section f below. (5) Any other accessory use or structure which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses The following uses are specifically prohibited: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS (1) All uses not permitted by section b through d ' above. (2) Outdoor storage of any equipment, materials, apparatus or vehicles greater than one (1) ton. (3) Adult entertainment businesses. (3) Educational institutions. (5) Hospitals and nursing homes. (6) Residential uses. (7) Manufacturing uses ' (8) Day nurseries. ' (9) Automobile wrecking, junk and salvage yards. (10) Vehicle engine/transmission rebuilding as a primary use. (11) Any use which would result in conditions or circumstances contrary to public health, safety and general welfare. f. Site Development Standards ' (1) Building site area. Nineteen thousand and eight hundred (19,800) square feet minimum required, except as provided for in Zoning Code section 7-9- 126. (2) Building site coverage. Forty (40) percent maximum. (3) Building height. Fifteen (15) feet maximum or sloping up to eighteen (18) feet maximum in the first twenty (20) feet measured from the front SPECIFIC PLAN property line and then, thirty (30) feet maximum for structures located less than seventy-five (75) feet from any property line abutting the REQ District; thirty-seven (37) feet forstructures located seventy- five (75) feet or more from any property line abutting the REQ District. Roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall comply with the following: (a) Mechanical roof screens may exceed the maximum 37 foot height limit by six (6) feet, provided that the roof screen is set back from the outside face ofthemain building parapet a minimum of ten (10) feet. (b) Roof screen materials and detailing must be compatible with the main building architecture. (c) Roof -mounted equipment may not be visible from a point five (5) feet above the centerline of the adjacent street(s) and from abutting lots in the REQ District, as calculated from a point five (5) feet above existing grade level from a distance of three hundred (300) feet or less from the subject building site. (4) Building setbacks. (a) Front setback. Ten (10) feet minimum. (b) Side setback. Ten (10)-foot minimum except where the side property line abuts the REQ District, in which case the following shall apply: 1) For structures, to include roof - mounted mechanical equipment, thirty (30) feet or less in height: forty- five (45) feet minimum, to include a IV-27 Land Use District Regulations H SANTA ANA HEIGHTS' SPECIFIC PLAN ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the property line. 2) For structures greater than thirty (30) feet in height: seventy-five (75) feet minimum, to include a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the property line. ' (c) Rear Setback. Ten (10) feet minimum, except where the rear property line abuts the REQ District, in which case the following shall apply: 1) For structures thirty (30) feet or less in height: forty-five (45) feet minimum, to include a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the property line. ' 2) . For structures greater than thirty (30) feet in height: seventy-five (75) feet minimum, to include a ten (10) foot ' wide landscape buffer adjacent to the property line. 3) Off-street parking. Per Zoning Code section 7-9-145, except only one (1) level of parking is permitted below any floor with office%ommercial space. (5) Trash storage and ground mounted mechanical equipment. All storage of cartons, containers and trash along with ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed by a building or by a wall not less than six (6) feet in height. No such structure shall be located within ten (10) feet of any property line abutting the REQ District. If unroofed, no such structure shall be located ' within forty (40) feet of any property line abutting ' Land Use District Regulations IV-28 the REQ District and no closer than ten (10) feet from any side property line abutting the BP District. See Chapter III, Community Design Program, for design guidelines.) (6) Enclosed uses. All office and commercial uses and their related products shall be contained entirely within a completely enclosed structure except for parking and loading areas and except for outdoor uses expressly permitted by an approved use permit. (7) Landscaping. A minimum landscaped area of fifteen (15) percent of the gross acreage of the building site shall be provided to include the following: (a) Boundary landscaping with a minimum depth of ten (10) feet along all property lines abutting a public street, except for the area required for street openings. (b) Boundary landscaping with a minimum depth of three (3) feet along all property lines not abutting a public street, except property lines abutting the REQ District where a minimum depth of ten (10 feet is required. Landscaping shall be provided in conformance with the landscape guidelines in Chapter III, Community Design Program. (9) Building design. All development shall be -in conformance with the guidelines in Chapter III, Community Design Program, and the following: (a) On properties abutting the REQ District, a direct line of sight to abutting properties within the REQ District from second story openings, windows, usable balconies, open SANTA ANA HEIGHTS stairways, stairway landings or other ' architectural features shall be prohibited. All windows above the first floor facing the REQ District must have a minimum height of six (6) feet, six (6) inches of permanent window treatment. This treatment can include integral ly-obsured glass, permanently positioned window louvers or ' other equally effective treatment as approved by the Planning Commission. Applied films to windows is prohibited. (b) Usable balconies, open stairways and landings or other architectural features shall be permitted on the sides and the front of the building, not facing the REQ District. (c) All roof structures, such as air conditioning ' units, ventilation devices or other roof - mounted appurtenances, shall be screened from view from a point five (5) feet above the centerline of an adjacent street and from the REQ District or abutting lots in the REQ District, as calculated from a point five (5) feet above existing grade level from a ' distance of three hundred (300) feet or less from the subject building site. (10) Lighting. All lighting, exterior and interior, shall be designed and located so that direct light rays are confined to the premises. (See Chapter III, Community Design Program, for lighting guidelines.) ' (11) Buffer Area. A minimum six (6) foot slump block wall above highest adjacent grade per Exhibit 15 shall be constructed along property lines abutting the REQ District, except within the front setback area, where the height shall be no greater than SPECIFIC PLAN three and one-half (3-1/2) feet. Landscaping adjacent to this wall shall be in conformance with the guidelines in Chapter III, Community Design Program. (12) Utility poles and overhead wires. All public utility wires and lines shall be undergrounded within the ten (10) foot setback area adjacent to any public street. (13) Signs. The following signs shall be -permitted subject to the noted restrictions: (a) Ground sign: One (1) double-faced ground sign per building site within the required front setback area, containing only the address of the property. Ground signs shall not exceed six (6) feet in height including any earth berm, pedestal, base or similar structure upon which the sign may be mounted. Height to top of sign shall be measured from the top of curb for the adjacent public street. Each sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area and shall not have internal lighting. External lighting fixtures used to illuminate ground signs shall be concealed within plant materials or attached to and designed as an integral part of the sign. The sign and sign structure shall be designed and located so as not to create a site distance safety problem for vehicle or pedestrian traffic. (b) Wall sign: 1) One (1) identification sign placed on each wall facing a public street, relating only to the name and use of the building and comprising no more than ten 00) percent of the area of the I IV-29 Land Use District Regulations SANTAANA'HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN wall (up to a maximum of forty (40) square feet), including windows and door area, upon which the sign is located. Such signs shall not have internal or external lighting. 2) Additionally, in multiple tenancy office buildings, each individual tenant may have a wall sign over their entrance to identify only the name of the business. Each sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. Such signs shall not be located above the roof facia, shall -not have internal lighting and shall be made of a ' material compatible with the materials of the building. ' (c) Building directory: One (1) building directory at each main entrance to the building. Such directory shall have letters ' not exceeding two (2) inches in height, containing only the name of the tenants, the suite or office number, and the nature of the use or service rendered. ' (d) Real estate sign: One (1) unlighted sign not to exceed twelve (12) square feet in area, pertaining only to the sale, lease or hire of the particular building, property or premises upon which displayed, and including no ' institutional advertising. (d) All signs located within structures where such signs are not visible from any point on ' the boundary of the building site (14) A drainage plan shall be submitted and approved ' as part of the use permit for each development showing the method for control and disposal of all Land Use District Regulations IM1t7 waters flowing into, across, and from the building site and a statement setting forth the method by which facilities shall be maintained. (15) The traffic generation of any development shall not exceed the amount of traffic generated by a development on a building site of equivalent size consisting entirely of office uses and including gross office space equal to half the square footage of the site (a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio). 9. PA "Professional and Administrative Office" District a. Purpose and intent. The PA District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses and related uses on sites with large landscaped open spaces and off-street parking facilities. This district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas. b. Principal Uses Permitted. (1) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a site development permit per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply). (a) Automobile parking lots per Zoning Code section 7-9-145. (b) Churches, temples, and other places of worship. (c) Civic and government uses. (d) Communication transmitting, reception, or relay facilities. (e) Day (care) nurseries. (0 Educational institutions serving adults. (g) Financial institutions. (h) Libraries and museums. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (i) Professional and administrative offices. (j) Public/private utility buildings and structures. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply). (a) Any use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. d. Accessory Uses Permitted. The following accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. (1) Uses per Zoning Code section 7-9-137 which include: (a) Detached buildings. (b) Fences and walls. (2) Signs per Zoning Code Section 7-9-111. (3) Accessory uses and structures which the Director, PDSD finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. e. Prohibited Uses. Notwithstanding section b through d, the following uses are specifically prohibited: (1) Adult entertainment businesses. (2) Uses not permitted by sections b through d. Ll IV-31 Land Use District Regulations SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN f. Site Development Standards. (1) Building site area. Ten thousand (10,000) square feet minimum except per section 7-9-126.1. (2) Building site width. Seven -five (75) feet minimum except per section 7-9-126.1. (3) Building height. Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (4) Building site coverage. Thirty-five (35) percent maximum. (5) Building site setbacks. Per Zoning Code section 7- 9-127, 7-9-128, and 7-9-137. (6) Off -Street parking. (a) Parking shall be provided as required by Zoning Code section 7-9-145. (b) Parking on the front half of the lot shall have no direct access to the street and shall be under roof unless adequate screening of open parking can be provided by berming, fencing, or landscaping as shown on an approved site plan or use -permit. ' (7) Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so as to confine direct rays to the premises. (8) Trash and storage area. All storage of cartons, ' containers and trash shall be enclosed by a building or by a wall not less than six (6) feet in height. If unroofed, no such area shall be located within forty (40) feet of any district zoned for ' residential or agricultural uses. ' (9) Enclosed uses. All commercial and office uses and their related shall be contained entirely products Land Use District Regulations IV-32 within a completely enclosed structure except for parking and loading areas and outdoor uses expressly permitted by an approved site development permit or use permit. (10) Screening. Per Zoning Code section 7-9-132.1. (11) Landscaping. Per Zoning Code section 7-9-132.2. (12) Buffer. A minimum six (6) foot slump block wall per Exhibit 15 shall be constructed along property lines abutting the REQ District, except within the front setback area, where the height shall be no greater than three and one-half (3-1/2) feet. Landscaping adjacent to this wall shall be in conformance with the guidelines in Chapter III, Community Design Program. I .. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 10. PACC "Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation" District a. Purpose and Intent The PACC District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of professional and administrative office uses and commercial uses on lots located between South Bristol Street and Zenith Avenue 1 in a manner, which will ensure lot consolidation and vehicular access to and from South Bristol Street. b. Uses Permitted (1) The following principal uses are permitted. (a) Single family detached dwelling units which lawfully existed at the time of adoption of ' these regulations may be rebuilt in conformance with the zoning regulations in effect prior to the adoption of this specific plan. However, such reconstruction must ' comply with current building and related codes. (2) The following principal uses are permitted subject to approval of a site development permit by Zoning Administrator per Zoning Code section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9-150.10 does not apply). "Professional (a) All uses permitted within PA and Administrative Office" District of this Specific Plan. (3) Notwithstanding Ordinance Number 3881, the following principal uses are permitted subject to ' the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per section 7-9-150 (Section 7-9- 150.10 does not apply). SPECIFIC PLAN (a) Retail businesses. (b) Service businesses. (c) Restaurants without drive -through facilities. (d) Any other uses which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Site Development Standards (1) Building site area. All lots within this district shall be consolidated into one building site to achieve a minimum area of forty thousand (40,000) square feet. (2) Vehicular access. Vehicular access shall be South Bristol Street. (3) All other site development standards within the PA "Professional and Administrative Office" District of this Specific Plan are also applicable. IV-33 Land Use District Regulations i u I I I rI L ,t rI SAIYTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 11. PD "Planned Development" Combining District Zoning Code section 7-9-110 shall constitute the land use regulations to be applied within the PD Combining District. 12. (S) "Commercial Stable" Overlay District Commercial stables, housing horses and ponies only, are permitted in areas designed with an (S) overlay, subject to approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission and an animal facility license per Resolution Nos. 76-625 and 76-1610, enforced by the Orange County Health Officer or his designee. No residential uses shall be permitted on the same building site as a commercial stable. The following site development standards shall apply: a. Building height. Twenty (20) feet maximum, except for structures used for the storage of hay. However, in no case may any structure exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. b. Setbacks. Minimum setbacks for all structures housing animals shall be as follows (all other structures shall be located in conformance with Zoning Code section 7-9- 137): (1) Front setback. Fifty (50) feet minimum. Exercise areas, such as arenas, shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. (2) Side setback. (a) Abutting all districts except BP District: Five (5) feet minimum. Exercise areas shall also be set back a minimum of five (5) feet. Land Use District Regulations IV-34 (b) Abutting BP District: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum. Exercise areas shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet. (3) Rear setback. Five (5) feet minimum. Exercise areas shall also be set back a minimum of five (5) feet. C. Number of animals. Twenty-five (25) animals per gross acre maximum. d. Landscaping. Boundary landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs, vines, grasses, ground cover or any combination thereof. Such areas shall not include open soils, building, paving, gravel or any other assemblage of building materials upon or over the land. Landscaping shall be provided as follows: (1) Boundary landscaping with a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet along all property lines abutting a public street, except for the area required for street openings. (2) Boundary landscaping with a minimum depth of five (5) feet along all property lines not abutting a public street. (3) An approved irrigation system shall be provided. e. Building design. All buildings shall maintain a consistent design theme (e.g., use of similar exterior materials). Use of earthtone colors and non -reflective roof materials shall be required. Lighting. All lighting shall be designed and located so that direct rays are confined to the premises. I i 1 13. (N) "Commercial Nursery" Ov Wholesale commercial r 1 designed with a (N) over standards of the base disc i 0 1 1 1 i 0 1 1 IV-35 Land Use District Regulations �1 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN E. PROCEDURES 1. Discretionary Permit Procedures Discretionary permits, including site development permits, use permits and variances, shall be processed per Zoning Code section 7-9-150. 2. Specific Plan Amendment Procedures The specific plan amendment procedures contained in Zoning Code section 7-9-156 shall apply. 1-1 Land Use District Regulations IV-36 A AGREEMENT AIRPORT WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE COUNTY This Agreement, entered into this 1st day of April, 1999 by and between the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation and Charter City (City) and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc., a non-profit corporation, (AWG) is made with reference to the following: WHEREAS, the City is a municipal corporation and Charter City committed to preserving the health, welfare and safety of its citizens; and WHEREAS, AWG is a California non-profit public corporation exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and WHEREAS, AWG has requested a Grant from the City to conduct a survey to determine attitudes and opinions among the public relative to the proposed commercial aviation reuse of El Toro; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a Grant to AWG to conduct the survey with funding contingent on, among other things, written commitments by AWG that City funds will not be spent to support or oppose the qualification, passage or defeat of any ballot measure. WHEREAS, the Grant to AWG is also contingent on commitments by AWG that City funds not be used for any activity that would be inconsistent with applicable state and federal statutory and decisional law. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. GRANT City agrees to Grant to AWG the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) subject to the terms, restrictions, covenants and conditions of this Agreement. This Grant shall be paid within ten (10)"days of'the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on April 1, 1999 (the Effective Date) and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated by the City or until December 31, 2000, whichever occurs first. 3. LIMITATIONS ON ACTIVITIES In consideration of the City's commitments, AWG agrees to use the Grant only to conduct a survey of public opinions and attitudes relative to the proposed commercial aviation reuse of El Toro MCAS. 4. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS A. AWG acknowledges that municipal corporations are prohibited from spending, directly or indirectly, public funds to support or oppose candidates for public office. AWG also acknowledges that the courts have determined that public funds may not be spent, directly or indirectly, to support or oppose the qualification, passage or defeat of a ballot measure absent express legislative authority. Accordingly, AWG warrants that the Grant will not be spent, directly or indirectly, to support or oppose a candidate or candidates for public office. AWG warrants that the Grant will not be spent, directly or indirectly, to support or oppose the qualification or passage off any ballot measure. AWG also warrants that the Grant will not be spent in a manner that would be inconsistent with relevant State and Federal statutory and decisional law. Finally, AWG warrants that the Grant will not be spent to prepare or distribute material, or to disseminate information, if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the material or information supports or opposes the election of any candidate or the qualification, defeat or passage of any ballot measure. B. To ensure compliance with Subsection 4 (A), AWG warrants that it shall, at its own expense, retain legal counsel experienced in such matters to review all material or information prior to distribution or dissemination to ensure compliance with all statutory and decisional law governing the conduct of political campaigns and the conditions, restrictions, warranties and provisions of this Agreement. The provisions of this Subsection shall not create any claim, loss, damage, cause of action or legal right on the part of any third party, including but not limited to the City, against legal counsel retained by AWG. 5. INDEMNIFICATION AWG shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, and its officers and employees, from any claim, loss, litigation, or liability arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement regardless of the cause, except for any liability arising from the sole negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of the City or its officers or employees. However, AWG's obligations pursuant to this Section are limited to the amount of the Grant or that portion of the Grant spent, or alleged to have been spent, in violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 6. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY This Agreement does not create, and the parties do not intended to create, any claim, loss, damage, cause of action or legal right for or on behalf of any third party. 7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties and may be amended only by a writing signed by the Party to be charged. Agreed: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Date: F:\users\cat\shared\AWG\Agt04Ol99.doc AWG 22 Date: I1 ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT AIRPORT WORKING GROUP/CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH This Addendum to the Agreement between the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation and Charter City (City) and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc., a non-profit corporation, (AWG) that is dated April 1, 1999 (Agreement) is intended to establish procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to restrictions on the use of City funds. The Parties agree as follows: 1. AWG shall establish a separate account for all funds granted by City. The account shall be maintained in a financial institution that provides deposit insurance guaranteed by the Federal government; 2 AWG may expend funds granted by City only in accordance with the following: A. The expenditures must be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Grant as specified by the City Council as well as any specific condition(s) imposed by the City. B. The expenditures shall be consistent with the Agreement, this Addendum, Exhibit A and all relevant Federal and State statutory and decisional Law.. C. Expenditures are authorized only for the preparation or dissemination of material, or the conduct of activities or events, that are consistent with the Guidelines attached to this Addendum as Exhibit A; D. Prior to the printing or dissemination of any written material to be funded in whole or in part by the Grant, AWG will present a copy of the material to the City Attorney of Newport Beach as well as counsel for AWG for the sole purpose of determining if the material is consistent with the terms and conditions of the Grant, the Agreement and statutory and decisional law. This determination shall be made after consultation with an attorney or attorneys representing AWG. E. AWG may request the City Attorney to make a Consistency Determination with respect to concepts, information and messages that AWG is considering for incorporation into written material or oral presentations. The determination of the City Attorney that the concepts, messages or information are consistent with Exhibit A shall be valid authorization to use City funds only to the extent that the final product strictly adheres to the concepts, messages or information submitted for the Consistency Determination. 2. AWG shall provide City with an accounting of all expenditures of City funds. The accounting shall be in sufficient detail to allow the City to determine if the expenditures were consistent with purpose and intent of the Grant, the Agreement, this Addendum, Exhibit A and applicable State and Federal Law. 3. In the event that AWG intends to use Grant funds to pay all or a portion of consultant fees, AWG shall ensure that all work performed by the consultant is consistent with the provisions of the Grant, the Agreement, Exhibit A and all relevant State and Federal Law. Dated Dated Dennis D. O'Neil Mayor of Newport Beach Tom Naughton President of AWG �WA Page 1 of 4 MJOHN WAYNE AIRPORT History, Settlement Agreement, Current Operations and Future Prepared by the El Toro Airport Info Site, from court documents, Board of Supervisors'resolutions, airport revenue bond disclosures, and airport staffpublications. Updated July 15, 2000 all commercial aviation operations at John Wayne airport would be moved to the MCAS El Toro site. JWA would operate, in the future, as a general aviation airport only."... (i.e.. private planes only)... Environmental Impact Report 563 approved by the Board of Supervisors, December 11,1996. History of the Airport: John Wayne Airport originated in the 1920's as a private landing strip on Irvine Company land. In 1939, the airport became publicly owned, through a land swap between the Irvine Company and the County. It served temporarily as a military base during World War II and was returned to the County A 22,000 square foot terminal was built in 1967 to accommodate 0.4 million annual passengers (MAP). There were other smaller additions made leading up to the major Airport Improvement Project of the late 1980's. The Orange County Airport was renamed in honor of John Wayne is 1979. A 1985 Master Plan for the airport showed that passenger demand increased from 3,685,000 in 1970 to 7,142,000 in 1980, and "unconstrained passenger demand was projected to increase to 14130 000 in 1995." Litigation: Starting in about 1968, the County became the defendant in numerous civil damage actions "where individuals residing to the south of JWA claimed damage and injury to their persons and property, alleged to be caused by the noise and other environmental effects of aircraft operations at JWA." (Board of Supervisors Resolution 85-1232) From 1981 on, the County on one side, and the City of Newport Beach, with two residents' groups, the Airport Working Group, and Stop Polluting Our Newport, on the other side, were engaged in litigation in both state and federal courts. 1985 Settlement Agreement: In order to end the litigation, the County, and the City of Newport Beach with the Airport Working http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/JWA.htm 02/05/2001 JWA Page 2 of 4 Group and Stop Polluting Our Newport, reached the Airport Settlement Agreement of 1985. This was a court approved stipulation as to mutually acceptable regulations for the development of John Wayne. The Final Judgment of City of Newport Beach vs. County of Orange was filed December 13, 1985 in U.S. District Court, Case No. CV85-1542 TJH (Mcx). The Agreement limits virtually every aspect of airport operations until December 31, 2005: • Passengers limited to 8.4 million annual passengers... less than 60% of the earlier Master Plan projection demand. - A maximum of 73 average daily departures, no more than 39 of which may be louder than commercial Class A aircraft (Single Event Noise Levels between 89.5 and 100.), e.g.. MD-80. No planes louder than SENEL 100, e.g.. B737-200. • Terminal size not to exceed 337,900 square feet. • Parking spaces not to exceed 8,400, not including North parking. There were 4,500 available next to the main terminal. • Loading bridges are limited to 14 with no more than 9 serving Boeing 767 size aircraft. • Curfews established on the hours of operation. Departures are limited to between 7 AM and 10 PM, Monday -Saturday and 8 AM to 10 PM on Sundays. Arrivals are allowed until 11 PM, Monday -Sunday. The Agreement can be, and has been modified by consent of the parties. The Agreement states that "Recognizing that JWA is incapable of satisfying the demand for air travel in Orange County, this settlement is also designed to permit studies regarding possible future development of an additional airport to serve Orange County." The County will not prevent a qualified entity or consortium from seeking funding for studies concerning a site for an additional airport. While the Agreement refers to studies of other sites within the County, it does not appear to preclude study of sites outside of the County, that could help satisfy the aviation demand. The Newport Beach -based Airport Working Group, a signator to the 1985 Agreement, has long been one of the most active proponents of a new commercial airport at El Toro. The Airport Working Group worked for passage of Measure A. AWG joined in the County of Orange's unsuccessful legal defense of the El Toro EIR. Prior to issuance of the latest airport bonds, the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach residents' groups proposed to the county that the Agreement be extended through 2015. • The parties proposed that "in return for an extension... they would consider certain concessions, including possible increases in the maximum permitted number of (departures) and issues related to the MAP limit of 8.4." At the time, county staff recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they be allowed to hold discussions with the parties but no changes were made. Expansion of John Wayne: Following the 1985 settlement, the Airport Improvement Project was begun. The Airport issued $242,440,000 in Airport Revenue Bonds in 1987, due in the year 2018, to finance the construction. It was the largest public works project in the County's history. The bonds are payable solely from revenue at the airport and are not general obligations of the County. http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/JWA.htm 02/05/2001 JWA Page 3 of 4 The bond indenture provides that if the county operates another airport, such as El Toro, which causes John Wayne to be unable to meet the debt service requirements, then the the debt obligation will be transferred to the new airport. County staff has also stated that outstanding JWA debt at shutdown could be repaid from cash reserves set aside for capital improvements. The Thomas F. Riley Terminal (Named for a former member of the Board of Supervisors.) was opened to the public on September 16,1990. It conforms to the maximum size allowed by the Agreement. In 1999, the county added 2,000 more parking spaces, at a cost of $27 million. Current Operations: The capacity of JWA "officially" has been estimated at approximately 15 million annual passengers (MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan, Appendix C. page 21) The airport is currently utilized at about half of this capacity level. Some analysts put the airport's real capacity at closer to 20 million. ack of passenger growth has been attributed to the higher placed on the number of passengers the airlines can carry. The county allocates seat capacity that can be flown amongst the several airlines. For the 1999-00 year, total flights in and out of John Wayne held approximately 13 million seats - but 5 million of these seats were required to remain empty because of the limit on the number of passengers served. Click here for more about these 5 million empty seats. The Settlement Agreement was modified in 1995 to allow Federal Express and UPS to operate one daily flight each for air cargo. Commercial flights represented only around 18% of the flight operations, with general aviation comprising the bulk of the remainder. at The Future: John Wayne Closure Likely if El Toro is Built. Some Propose Freezing JWA With No El Toro. The City of Newport Beach has fought for many years to limit the use of John Wayne, and to promote an airport at El Toro. On December 11,1996, the Board of Supervisors, acting on the recommendation of the County Airport Commission and the Citizens Advisory Commission, approved Environmental Impact Report 563 and a Community Reuse Plan that calls for the closing of John Wayne Airport to "all commercial aviation operations", if El Toro is built. As a political concession, the Supervisors asked county staff to "study" a two -airport system. In April 1998, the 3 member majority on the Board of Supervisors approved such a plan, with John Wayne and El Toro linked by a "people mover". This concept was later scrapped. The airline industry has given numerous technical and economic reasons why a two -commercial - airport. system won't fly. For a more complete review of the two -airport issue click here. http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/JWA.htm 02/05/2001 JWA ., Page 4 of 4 Based on the evidence, we expect the eventually closure of John Wayne to commercial traffic if El Toro is built. On April 16,1997, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, recommending that "all existing airports in the area should be evaluated for growth potential" before the county pushes ahead with construction of a new airport. While "understanding that a discussion of capacity enhancement is an extremely sensitive issue to the residents impacted by current operations at JWA" the ETRPA suggested that John Wayne capacity might be expanded without sacrificing nighttime curfews and without allowing noisier aircraft. Consideration should also be given to "a transportation system to shuttle" residents to other existing airports in the region. The Newport -based Airport Working Group promptly attacked this proposal. In March, 2000 the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority went further, and proposed cooperation on a No JWA expansion, No El Toro Airport plan. Individual leaders in Newport Beach made similar proposals. Measure F, passed on March 7, 2000, would require a two-thirds ratification of the voters before either airport project could be built. Issues Main Page Home http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/JWA.htm 02/05/2001 I Al0 m April 2, 2001 MEMORANDUM MSNALLY TEMPLE ASSOCIATES, INC. TO: Homer L. Bludau FR: Ray McNally, Richard Temple, Tony Russo, Chris St. HilaiPe RE: Initial Settlement Education Effort We have reviewed the materials you provided regarding the Airport Settlement Agreement and propose the following education effort to share with residents the City of Newport Beach's actions to extend the agreement and protect property values and the quality of life of local residents. In reviewing the survey research, the following points were instructive in developing this program and in establishing a message. • 53 percent of all voters in Newport Beach are not familiar with the Airport Settlement Agreement • Only 17 percent of Newport Beach residents are very familiar with the Airport Settlement Agreement. • 82% of those surveyed support extending the Airport Settlement Agreement to 2025, with 72 percent very strongly supporting extension • Few voters have a sense of urgency that the Airport Settlement Agreement would not be extended 1817 Capitol Avenue Sacramento I CA I 95814 T 916 447 8186 F 916 447 6326 W I mcnallytemple.com • The sense of urgency does not increase materially, even after sharing possible opposition from the major airlines and the FAA along with possible court action to invalidate the agreement. • From 75 to 84 percent of survey respondents support building another airport in El Toro whether or not the Airport Settlement Agreement is extended depending on the impacts to Newport Beach. These research findings are more than sufficient to develop and execute an education effort in the City of Newport Beach. However, additional research would be helpful to ensure an appropriate message and tone in cities other than Newport Beach. Objectives and Strategy The survey results suggest that the most important element of the education effort must be to inform residents that an Airport Settlement Agreement exists and what it does — especially limiting flights, hours of operation, flight operations and aircraft dimensions. Once residents know of the agreement, they tend to support it quite strongly. We should also explain what would happen should the Airport Settlement Agreement expire — likely more flights, longer operating hours, bigger planes and greater traffic congestion near and around the airport. These will all tend to hurt property values and the quality of life for most residents. Given the need for county approval of extending the settlement agreement and a likely decision point in the next two months, we recommend mailing to all residents in the flight corridor, not just residents in Newport Beach. In so doing, we would target our messages appropriately for each city or at a minimum for Newport Beach and the other corridor cities combined. Three county supervisors, Tom Wilson, Chuck Smith and Todd Spitzer, represent one or more of the cities in the flight corridor. I Finally, we recommend providing residents some call to action — a return card or ballot encouraging the city to move forward with its efforts to extend the agreement and/or contact the County Board of Supervisors to encourage them to take whatever action is needed to begin the process of extending the agreement. These calls to action could be personalized by city and include: • Urging residents to sign a postage paid return postage cards to their county supervisor or the City of Newport Beach • Urging residents to write a letter of support of extending the Airport Settlement Agreement to their county supervisor • Providing a 1-800 number service where residents can get more information and/or to be direct -connected to their county supervisor Tactics We recommend using direct mail and telemarketing as the principle mediums to communicate with residents. Supplemental efforts may include cable television and outbound telemarketing. We also recommend communicating with all residents and not just registered voters to protect the city from attack that the effort is not an educational one, but an advocacy campaign. If in fact all residents would be affected by the Airport Settlement Agreement, we should communicate with all residents, not just registered voters. The only reason not to communicate with all residents would be cost. By excluding residents who are not registered to vote, the city could save — or — percent of the total cost of the direct mail. Mailing counts are provided below by city. These will be updated with new census data that will be available within two weeks and likely in time for the M first mailing. The corridor cities combined, other than Newport Beach, total 164,201 households. Newport Beach 30,860 Costa Mesa 37,467 Orange 36,791 Santa Ana 71,611 Tustin 18,332 We recommend a series of four pieces (outlined below) to all residents in the City of Newport Beach and the other corridor cities — Costa Mesa, Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin. We also recommend varying the message by each city or at a minimum for Newport Beach residents and residents in the other corridor cities. (1) A letter from the city manager explaining the city's efforts to extend the Airport Settlement Agreement along with the background and components of the agreement. (2) A report from the City of Newport Beach on the effectiveness of the Airport Settlement Agreement and future projections/impacts with and without extending the agreement. (3) A brochure outlining the process to extend the Airport Settlement Agreement — key steps, timeline, process, pitfalls and ways residents can help. (4) A letter or telegram from area city managers urging residents to contact their county supervisor and encourage them to support extending the Airport Settlement Agreement. We also recommend establishing an automated 1-800 line where residents can get more information and utilize the system to be directly connected by phone to their county supervisor's office. This 800 number could be included on all communications with residents to promote communications with the county board of supervisors. In addition, we could establish an outbound telemarketing program where live operators shared information about the Airport Settlement Agreement with residents and then offered to direct -connect them to their county supervisor's Our experience has been that these programs work best when only a handful of calls are actually direct -connected each day to ensure staff does not become overwhelmed by the number of phone calls. Finally, we could supplement the direct mail and telemarketing programs with cable television — highlighting the issue and promoting the 800 number. Schedule We recommend the preliminary schedule below for the initial series of direct mail to Newport Beach residents. A schedule for communicating with corridor residents would be proposed upon completions of this component. Week of April 9 Establish 1-800 number service Week of April 16 Letter from the City Manager Week of April 30 Newport Beach Airport Settlement Agreement Report Week of May 7 Begin cable television to run through June 8th Week of May 14 Brochure outlining extension effort and timeline Week of May 28 Letter or telegram urging people to contact their supervisor I w . Week of May 28 Sponsor outbound telemarketing to corridor residents — sharing information and offering to connect them to their county supervisor Budget We have prepared a preliminary budget to execute the tactics included in this plan. It includes all anticipated expenses i.e., agency fees, administrative expenses, copywriting, graphic design, production expenses and postage. The preliminary budget is based on completing the approved work plan in the next two months. Agency fees $ 20,000 Administration 3,000 Direct Mail Newport Beach 56,000 Other Corridor Cities 275,000 Return Postage 20,000 Telemarketing 800 service 15,000 Outbound calls 15,000 Cable Television Newport Beach 12,500 Other Corridor Cities 25,000 Production 10,000 Research 25,000 Reserve 5;000 TOTAL $ 481,500 Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 homestead air force base Google Search Usenet Advance �+ Usenet Helo Q Search all groups Q Search the Web WA. Mgt Click here for information about upcoming improvements to this beta version of Google's Usenet search. Usenet search result 12 for homestead air force base Toone sera e. ov noone sena e. ov eanc. esw t 2000CRS108521WATER RESOURCES D.EVELOPMENT'AET ,,;Part 6/6 ' r0ups:.aov.us.fed.congress.record.senate:' r. 2bo 40-24 07.56.58 PST - Vieircorri fete thread Archive -Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/2000/oct/23/2000CRS10852D/part6 (ii) Limitation on applicability of programmatic regulations. —Programmatic regulations promulgated under this paragraph shall expressly prohibit the requirement for concurrence by the Secretary of the Interior or the Governor on project implementation reports, project cooperation agreements, operating manuals for individual projects undertaken in the Plan, and any other documents relating to the development, implementation, and management of individual features of the Plan, unless such concurrence is provided for in other Federal or State laws. �D) Schedule and transition rule.— i) In general. —Ail project implementation reports approved before the date of promulgation of the programmatic regulations shall be consistent with the Plan. (ii) Preamble. —The preamble of the programmatic regulations shall include a statement concerning the consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project Implementation reports that were approved before the date of promulgation of the regulations. (E) Review of programmatic regulations. —Whenever necessary to attain Plan goals and purposes, but not less often than every 5 years, the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (A), shall review the programmatic regulations promulgated 4) Project -specific assurances. — A) Project implementation reports. — (I) In general. —The Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor shall develop project implementation reports in accordance with section 10.3.1 of the Plan. (ii) Coordination. —In developing a project implementation report, the Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. (w) Requirements. —A project implementation report shall — [[Page S108791] (1) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic regulations promulgated under paragraph (3); (11) describe how each of the requirements stated in paragraphp(3)(B is satisfied; 1(1169 com(42 UI S.C. the Naeat engal Environmental Policy Act of (IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system; 1 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&rnum=l2&seld=973576403&ic=1 ( ) identify the amount of water to be reserved or allocated for the natural system necessary to implement, under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI); (VI comply with applicable water quality standards and applicable water quality permitting requirements under bh the best available science; and n analysis concerning. the cost- d engineering feasibility of the project. �iB) Project cooperation agreements.— ) In general. —The Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor shall execute pro act cooperation agreements in accordance with section 10 of the Plan. (0) Condition. —The Secretary shall not execute a project cooperation agreement until any reservation or allocation of water for the natural system identified in the project implementation report is executed under State law. �C) Operating manuals.— i) In general. —The Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor shall develop and issue, for each project or group of pro ects, an operating manual that is consistent with the wat reservation or allocation for the natural system described in the project implementation report and the project cooperation agreement for the project or group of r6IJ Modifications. —Any significant modification by the Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor to an operating manual after the operating manual is issued shall only be carried out subject to notice and opportunity for public comment. �5) Savings clause.— A) No elimination or transfer. —Until a new source of water supply of comparable quantity and quality as that available on the date of enactment of this Act is available to replace the water to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan, the Secretary and the non -Federal sponsor shall not eliminate or transfer existing legal sources of water, (1) an agricultural or urban water supply; J) allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe Florida under section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e); ill) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; IV) water supply for Everglades National Park; or v) water supply for fish and wildlife. B) Maintenance of flood protection. —Implementation of the Pan shall not reduce levels of service for flood protection that are— a) ip existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and if) in accordance with applicable law. C) No effect on tribal compact. —Nothing in this section amends, alters, prevents, or otherwise abrogates rights of the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida under the compact among the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State, and the South Florida Water Management District, defining the scope and use of water rights of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified by section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e). ((1) Dispute Resolution.— (1) In general. —The Secretary and the Governor shall wiithln 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act develop an agreement for resolving disputes between the Corps of Engineers and the State associated with the implementation of the Plan. Such agreement shall establish a mechanism for the timely and efficient resolution of disputes, including — (A) a preference for the resolution of disputes between the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District; 2 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Godgle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&rnum=l2&seld=973576403&ic=1 (B a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the Corps OR�naineers or the South Florida Water Management District to initiate the dispute resolution process for unresolved issues; (C) the establishment of appropriate timeframes and intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the Governor and the Secretery; and (D) a mechanism for the final resolution of disputes, within 180 days from the date that the dispute resolution process is initiated under subparagraph (B). (2) Condition for report approval. —The ecretary shall not approve a project implementation report under this section until the agreement established under this subsection has (3) No effect on law. —Nothing in the agreement established under this subsection shall alter or amend any existing Federal or State law, or the responsibility of any party to the agreement to comply with any Federal or State law. �)Independent Scientific Review.— In general. —The Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Governor, in consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task EM, shall establish an independent scientific review panel convened by a body, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to, review the Plan's progress toward achieving the natural system restoration goals of the Plan. (2) Report. —The panel described in paragraph (1) shall produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Governor that includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system, based on the Plan. (k) Outreach and Assistance.— (1) Small business concerns owned and operated by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. —In executing the Plan, the Secretary shall ensure that small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are provided opportunities to participate under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 �2) Community outreach and education.— A) In general. —The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on sociially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including individuals with limited English proficiency, and communities are considered during implementation of the Plan, and that such individuals have opportunities to review and comment on its implementation. (B) Provision of opportunities. —The Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public outreach and educational opportunities are provided, during implementation of the Plan, to the individuals of South Florida, including individuals with limited English proficiency, and in particular for socially and economically disadvantaged communities. (1) Report to Congress. —Beginning on October 1, 2005, and periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall be completed not less often than every 5 years. Such reports shall include a description of planning, design, and construction work completed, the amount of funds expended during the period covered by the report (including a detailed analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment under subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over the next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall include— (1) the determination of each Secretary, and the 3 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether the completed projects of the Plan are being operated in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of subsection (h); ((2) progress toward interim goals established in accordance w)th subsection (h)(3)(B); and (3) a review of the activities performed by the Secretary under subsection (k) as they relate to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with limited English proficiency. (m) Report on Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. —Not later than 160 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing a determination as to whether the ongoing Biscayne Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program located in Miami -Dade County has a substantial benefit to the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem. Mn Full Disclosure of Proposed Funding.— Funding from all sources. —The President, as part of the annual budget of the United States Government, shall display under the heading "Everglades Restoration" all proposed funding for the Plan for all agency programs. ' 42) Funding from corps of engineers civil works program.— e President, as part of the annual budget of the United States Government, shall display under the accounts "Construction, General" and "Operation and Maintenance, General' of the title "Department of Defense —Civil, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers —Civil', the total proposed funding level for each account for the Plan and the percentage such level represents of the overall levels in such accounts. The President shall also include an assessment of the Impact such funding levels for the Plan would have on the budget year and long-term funding levels for the overall Corps of Engineers civil works program. (o) Surplus Federal Lands. —Section 390(0(2)(A)(1) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 1023) is amended by inserting after "on or after the date of enactment of this Act' the following: "and before the date of enactment of the Water Resource Development Act of 2000". (p) Severability.—If any provision or remedy provided by this section is found to a unconstitutional or unenforceable by any court of competentjurisdiction, any remaining enforceable. this section shhall remain valid and SEC. 602. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING VOM1 �a Findings. —Congress finds that- 1; the Everglades is an American treasure and includes uniquely -important and diverse wildlife resources and recreational opportunities; (2)) the preservation of the pristine and natural character of the South Florida ecosystem is critical to the regional economy; (3) as this legislation demonstrates, Congress believes it to be a vital national mission to restore and preserve this ecosystem and accordingly is authorizing a significant Federal investment to do so; (4) Congress seeks to have the remaining property at the former , om' es=d7CIi®conveyed and reused'as expedit ous y as possible, and several options for =� reu are being considered, including as a commercial air- portor ; ar (6) Congress is aware that the 1110 r3s ea4 site is located a sensitive environmental location, and Ka—Miscayne 4 of 9 2/23/O1 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http-//groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 National Park is only approximately 1.5 miles to the east, Everglades National Park approximately 8 miles to the west, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary approximately 10 miles to the south. [[Page S10880]] �b Sense of Congress. —It is the sense of Congress that- 1) development at the Homes ea site could potentially cause significant �, wa er, and noise pollution and result in the degradation of adjacent national parks and other protected Federal resources; (2) in their decisionmaking, the Federal agencies charged with determining the reuse of the remaining property at the M_e�tg should carefully consider and weigh all able fnfor'on concerning potential environmental Impacts of various reuse options; (3) the redevelopment of the former = should be consistent with restoration goals, provt a desirable numbers of jobs and economic redevelopment for the community, and be consistent with other applicable laws; 4) consistent with applicable laws, the Secretary of the should proceed as quickly as practicable to issue a na and Record of Decision so that reuse of the former can proceed expeditiously; wing conveyance of the remaining surplus property, the Secretary, as part of his oversight for Everglades restoration, should cooperate with the entities to which the various parcels of surplus property were conveyed so that the planned use of those properties is implemented in such a manner as to remain consistent with the goals of the Eva lades restoration plan; and (6)) by August 1, 2002, the Secretary should submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress on actions taken and make any recommendations for consideration by Congress. TITLE VII—MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS. In this title, the following definitions apply: (1) Pick-sloan program: —The term "Pick -Sloan program" means the Pick -Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat 891). (2) Plan. —The term "plan" means the plan for the use of funds made available by this title that is required to be prepared under section 705(e). (3) State. —The term "State" means the State of South Dakota. 44) Task —The term "Task �" means the Missouri r Task a established by section 705(a). (6) Trust.— aetterm "Trust" means the Missouri River Trust established by section 704(a). SEC, 702. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST. (a) Establishment. —There is established a committee to be known as the Missouri River Trust. (b) Membership. —The Trust shall be composed of 25 members to be appointed by the Secretary, inciuding— (1)15 members recommended by the Governor of South Dakota ha (A) represent equally the various interests of the public; and �B) include representatives of--, 1) the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources; (11) the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; 5 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 power industry; recreation user groups; agricultural groups; and other appropriate interests; 9 members, 1 of each of whom shall be recommended by of the 9 Indian tribes in the State of South Dakota; and 1 member recommended by the organization known as the ee Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota" (composed of the Jan, Hidatsa, and Ankara tribes). SEC. 703. MISSOURI RIVER TASK ME . (a) Establishment. —There is established the Missouri River Task C((b Membership. —The Task shall be composed of— (1; the Secretary (or a designee), who shall serve as Chhairperson; (2) the Secretary of Agriculture (or a designee); 3 the Secretary of Energy (or a designee); 4 the Secretary of the Interior (or a designee); and 6 the Trust. c Duties. —The Task W= shall- 1) meet at least twice —each-year, 2) vote on approval of the plan, with approval requiring votes in favor of the plan by a majority of the members; �3 review projects to meet the goals of the plan; and 4) recommend to the Secretary critical projects for (1) In general. —Not later than 1 year after the date on whhich funding authorized under this title becomes available, the Secretary shall submit to the other members of the Task a report on— e impact of the siltation of the Missouri River in the State, including the impact on the Federal, State, and regional economies, recreation, hydropower generation, fish and wildlife, and flood control; (B) the status of Indian and non -Indian historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River, (C) the extent of erosion along the Missouri River (including tributaries of the Missouri River) in the State; and D) other issues, as requ (2) Consultation. —In prep Pnthe Secretary shall coi rgy, the Secretary of tt A riculture, the State, and e Plan for Use of Funds 13 In general. —Not later w ich funding authorized t the Task shall prepi the Task of r of rs after the date on ltle becomes available, for the use of funds made Contents of plan. —The plan shall provide for the ier in which the Task shall develop and recommend al restoration projects -to -promote — conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed; the general control and removal of sediment from the the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from the protection of Indian and non -Indian historical and ral sites along the Missouri River from erosion; erosion control along the Missouri River, or any combination of the activities described in aragraphs (A) through (E). Plan review and revision.- 6 of 9 2/23/0111:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 In general. —The Task I= shall make a copy of the available for public review and comment before the plan Ames final, in accordance with procedures established by �B) Revision of plan.— I) In general. —The Task RM may, on an annual' basis, revise the plan. (fi) Public review and comment. —In revising the plan, the Task I= shall provide the public the opportunity to review and comment on any proposed revision to the plan. (fl Critical Restoration Proiects.— (1) In general. —After the plan is approved by the Task � under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary, in coordination with —the Task JM, shall identify critical restoration projects to carry outthe plan. (2 Agreement. —The Secretary may carry out a critical restoration project after entering into an agreement with an appropriate non -Federal interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b). (3) Indian projects. —To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of the funds made available for critical restoration projects under this title shall be used exclusively for projects that. are — A within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or B; administered by an Indian tribe. g Cost Sharing.- 1; Assessment. — A) Federal share. —The Federal share of the cost of carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) shall be 50 :deral share. —The non -Federal share of the cost out the assessment under subsection (d) may be the form of services, materials, or other in -kind �2) Plan.— A) Federal share. —The Federal share of the cost of e aring the plan under subsection (e) shall be 50 percent. pr(B� Non-federal share. —Not more than 50 percent of the non -Federal share of the cost of preparing the plan under subsection (e) may be provided in the form of services, materials, or other in -kind contributions. (3) Critical restoration projects.— (A) In general. —A non -Federal cost share shall be required to carry out any critical restoration project under subsection (0 that does not primarily benefit the Federal Government, as determined by the Task (B) Federal share. —The Federal share o e cost of carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection (flfl for which the Task requires a non -Federal cost sfiare under subparagrap A) shall be 65 percent, not to exceed $5,000,000 for any critical restoration project. - more than 50 percent of the non - cost of carrying out a critical ascribed in subparagraph (B) may be of services, materials, or other in -kind (11) Required non-federal contributions. —For any critical restoration project described in subparagraph (B), the non - Federal interest shall — (I) provide all land, easements, rights -of -way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations; Zpay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, rehabilitation costs; and (III) hold the United States harmless from all claims arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of -7 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&rnum=l2&seld=973576403&ic=1 the project. (III) Credit. —The non -Federal interest shall receive credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(1). SEC. 704. ADMINISTRATION. (e) In General. —Nothing in this title diminishes or affffects— �1 any water right of an Indian tribe; 23 any other right of an Indian tribe, except as specifically provided in another provision of this title; (3) any treaty right that is in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; (4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an Indian tribe; (5) any authority of the State that relates to the protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources, except as specifically provided in this title; or (6) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including—. (A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); [[Page 810881]] (B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa at seq.); (C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 (D) the Act entitled "An Act for the protection of the bald eagle", approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 at seq.); �E the Migratory Bud Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 at seq.); F; the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.1531 at (d) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 at seq.); (H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f at seq.); oral Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 (b) Federal Liability for Damage. —Nothing in this title relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to private property caused by the operation of the Pick -Sloan program. (c) Flood Control. —Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to operate the Pick -Sloan program for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.). SEC. 705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, and $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. Such funds shall remain available until expended. Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree with the amendments of the House, agree to the request for a conference, and -the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chair appointed Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Warner, Mr. 8 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groupsTq=...fe=off&mum=12&seld=973576403&ic=1 Voinovich, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Graham of Florida as conferees on the part of the Senate. ©2001 Google 9 of 9 2/23/01 11:37 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&rnum--L2&seld=967062260&ic=1 homestead air force base Goggle Search Usenet Advance 'M Usenet Help 114 Q Search all groups Q Search the Web Click here for information about upcoming improvements to this beta version of Google's Usenet search. Usenet search result 22 for homestead air force base c c e ews a. a ra: a n.or ! earc esw eCt"Election 2000:. The Best of AI1, Possible 1Norlds (fwd) roups:.talk.environment, sci.enviromment, alt.save.the.earth: ^.r ' 000=11,0M9:29:34iPST View'com fete thread http://www.commondreams.org/views/110900-105.htm Election 2000: The Best of All Possible Worlds by Alexander Cockburn So it all came out right in the end: gridlock on the Hill and Nader blamed for sabotaging Al Gore. First a word about gridlock. We like it. No bold initiatives, like privatizing Social Security or shoving through vouchers. No ultra -right-wingers making it onto the Supreme Court. Ah, you protest, but what about the bold plans that a Democratic -controlled Congress and Gore would have pushed through? Relax. There were no such plans. These days gridlock is the best we can hope for. Now for blaming Nader. Fine by us if all that people look at are those 97,000 Green votes for Ralph in Florida. That's good news in itself. Who would have thought the Sunshine State had that many progressives In it, with steel in their spine and the spunk to throw Eric Alterman's columns for The Nation into the trashcan? And they had plenty of reason to dump Gore. What were the big issues for Greens in Florida? The Everglades. Back in 1993 the hope was that Clinton/Gore would push through a cleanup bill to prevent toxic runoff from the sugar plantations south of Lake Okeechobee from destroying the swamp that covers much of south-central Florida. Such hopes foundered on a "win -win" solution brokered by sugar barons and the real estate industry. Clinton signed off on It, in a conversation with Alfonso Fanjul overheard by Monica Lewinsky as her the commander in chief deferentially accepted his marching orders. Another issue prompted some of those 97,000 to defiantly vote for Nader: the s a , which sits between Biscayne National Par an ea verg a es. a old 7 iP had been scheduled for shutdown, but then Cuban -American rea estate interests concocted a scheme to turn the = into a commercial airport. Despite repeated pleas from biologists inssi a the Interior Department as well as from Florida's Greens, Gore refused to intervene, cowed by the Canosa family, which represented the big money behind the airport's boosters. Just to make sure there would be no significant Green defections back to the Democratic standard, Joe Lieberman made a last-minute pilgrimage to the grave of Jorge Mas Canosa, once the godfather of the sinister Cuban -American National Foundation.. You want one final reason for the Nader voter in Florida? Try the death penalty, for which Gore issued strident support in that final debate. Florida runs third, after Texas and Virginia as a killing machine, and for many progressives in the state it's an issue 1 of 3 2/23/O1 11:43 AM Google Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&rnum=22&seld=967062260&ic=1 of principle. Incidentally, about half a million ex -felons, sentences and probation fully served, are disenfranchised permanently in Florida. A crucial number of these would have voted for Gore the crime fighter and supporter of the War on Drugs. Other reasons many Greens nationally refused to knuckle under and sneak back to the Gore column? You want an explanation of why he lost Ohio b four points and New Hampshire by one? Try the WTI hazardous -waste incinerator (world's largest) in East Liverpool, Ohio. Gore promised voters in 1992 that a Democratic administration would Will it. It was a double lie. First, Carol Browner's EPA almost Immediately gave the incinerator a permit. When confronted on his broken pledge, Gore said the decision had been pre-empted by the outgoing Bush crowd. This too was a lie, as voters in Ohio discovered a week before Election 2000. William Reilly, Bush's EPA chief, finally testified this fall that Gore's environmental aide Katie McGinty told him in the 1992 transition period that "it was the wishes of the new incoming administration to get the trial -burn permit granted. The Vice President?elect would be grateful if I simply made that decision before leaving office." Don't think this was a picayune issue with no larger consequences. Citizens of East Liverpool, notably Terry Swearingen, have been campaigning across the country on this scandal for years, haunting Gore. So too, to its credit, has Greenpeace. They were particularly active in the Northeast, during Gore's primary battles with Bill Bradley. You can certainly argue that the last-minute disclosure of Gore's WTI lies prompted enough Greens to stay firm and cost him New Hampshire, a state which, with Oregon, would have given Gore the necessary 270 votes. And why didn't Gore easily sweep Oregon? A good chunk of the people on the streets of Seattle last November come from Oregon. They care about NAFTA, the WTO and the ancient forests that Gore has been pledging to save since 1992. The spotted owl is now scheduled to go extinct on the Olympic Peninsula within the next decade. Another huge environmental issue in Oregon has been the fate of the salmon runs, wrecked by the Snake River dams. Gore thought he'd finessed that one by pretending that unlike Bush, he would leave the decision to the scientists. Then, a week before the election, Gore's team of scientists released a report saying they thought the salmon could be saved without breaching the four dams. Nader got 5 percent in Oregon, an amazing result given the intensive carpet -bombing by flacks for Gore like Gloria Steinem. Yes, Nader didn't break 5 percent nationally, but he should feel great, and so should the Greens who voted for him. Their message to the Democrats is clear. Address our issues, or you'll pay the same penalty next time around. Nader should draw up a short list of Green non-negotiable issues and nail it to the doors of the Democratic National Committee. By all means credit Nader, but of course Gore has only himself to blame. He's a product of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose pro -business stance was designed to regain the South for the Democrats. Look at the map. Bush swept the entire South, with the Possible exception of Florida. Gore's electoral votes came from the two coasts and the old industrial Midwest. The states Gore did win mostly came courtesy of labor and blacks. Take Tennessee, where voters know Gore best. He would have won the election if he'd carried his home state. Gore is good with liberals earning $100,000-$200,000. He can barely talk to rural people, and he made another fatal somersault, reversing his position on handguns after telling Tennessee voters for years that he was solid on the gun issue. Guns were a big factor in Ohio and West Virginia too. You can't blame Nader for that, but its OK with us if you do. 2 of 2/23/01 11:43 AM Goggle Search: homestead air force base http://groups.google.com/groups?q=...fe=off&mum=22&seld=967062260&ic=1 As for Nader holding the country to ransom, what's wrong with a hostage taker with a national backing of 2.7 million people? The election came alive because of Nader. Let's hope he and the Greens keep it up through the next four years. Not one vote for Nader, Mr. Alterman? He got them where it counted, and now the Democrats are going to have to deal with it. — End forwarded message — Green Party <http://www.green-party.org> Green Party Platform <http://Www.gp.org> ©2001 Google 3 of 3 2/23/01 11:43 AM Lol Terminal area and airport access plans Outline • Introduction: Continuation of phase three • Terminal area plans • Airport access plans Objectives When you have completed this chapter, you should be able to: • Define "terminal area." t<. • Describe the primary objective of the terminal area plans. • Discuss some of the factors taken into consideration by a airport planners in selecting a terminal area concept. • Summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the centralized and decentralized passenger processing systems. • Distinguish between the four terminal building design concepts. • Explain what is meant by the passenger handling system and identify the processing links. • List some of the terminal building facilities occupied by airport operations and management, airline operations, and government agencies. • Describe the flow of domestic, international, and transfer passengers through the terminal. 169 rfu rerminai area and airport access plans A Terminal area plans 171 • Define "general concept evaluation" and "criteria for design and development." • Identify the steps involved in determining space requirements. • Describe the purpose of the airport access plans. Introduction: Continuation of phase three This chapter completes phase three of the airport master plan with a discussion of the terminal area and airport access plans. The develop- ment of the terminal area plan, plans for components within the ter- minal area, and airport access plans evolve from demand/capacity analysis and from the airfield configurations and land use criteria es- tablished in the airport layout and land use plans. This does not mean that the terminal area concept that is selected for a particular airport will not have a vital impact on the airport layout plan. The airfield con- figuration and the terminal area configuration must fit together and ad- justments in both layouts must be made as the master plan evolves. Regardless of these necessary design adjustments, the details of the ter- minal area plan will follow the development of the airport layout plan. The terminal area is the area used or intended to be used for such facilities as terminal and cargo buildings; gates, hangars, shops, and other service buildings; automobile parking, airport motels, restau- rants, garages, and vehicle service —facilities used in connection with the airport; and entrance and service roads used by the public within the boundaries of the airport. The airport terminal —the building itself and the paved areas sur- rounding it on the airside and the landside—is the zone of transition for passengers, providing the link between surface and air trans- portation. Design and operation of the terminal have an influence on both airside capacity and ground access and the overall rate at which aircraft can be handled. The basic relationship, illustrated in Fig. 6-1, dictates the design of the terminal complex. Terminal area plans The primary objective of the terminal area plans is to achieve an acceptable balance between passenger convenience, operating effi- Baggage claim I I I I I I Rental car I check -in I I I r— -- I I Aircraft — —----------- ---- Holding Baggage Gate room facilities u I I Security I I I Airline check -in I Terminal building Terminal entrancelexit building I j ------------------- Curbside facilities r arking lots Airport roads i Airport J /parking �/ I I � Airport _ — — J boundary 6-1 Airport landside functional flow. ciency, facility investment, and aesthetics. The physical and psycho- logical comfort characteristics of the terminal area should afford the passenger orderly and convenient progress from automobile or pub- lic transportation through the terminal to the aircraft and back again. One of the most important factors affecting the air traveler is walk- ing distance. It begins when the passenger leaves the ground trans- portation vehicle and continues on to the ticket counter and to the point at which he or she boards the aircraft. Consequently, terminals are planned to minimize the walking distance by developing conve- nient auto parking facilities, convenient movements of passengers through the terminal complex, and conveyances that will permit fast and efficient handling of baggage. The planner normally establishes Terminal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans objectives for average walking distances from terminal points to parked aircraft. Conveyances for passengers such as moving walks and baggage handling systems are also considered. The functional arrangement of the terminal area complex with the air - side facilities is designed so as to be flexible enough to meet the oper- ating characteristics of the airline industry for handling passengers and for fast ground servicing of aircraft so that minimum gate occupancy time and maximum airline operating economy will be achieved. The final objective of the terminal area plans is to develop a complex that provides all necessary services within an optimum expenditure of funds from the standpoints of capital investment and maintenance and operating costs. This takes into account flexibility and costs that will be required in future expansions of the terminal area. Terminal area factors In the selection of a terminal area concept, the following factors are taken into consideration by airport planners: 1 Adequate terminal area curb space for private and public transportation. Tom Bradley International Terminal at Zos Angeles International Airport. 2 Minimum walking distance —automobile parking to ticket counter. 3 Minimum walking distance —ticket counter to passenger holding area and holding area to aircraft. 4 Passenger transportation —where long distances must be traversed. 5 Pedestrian walkways to aircraft as backup to mechanical transportation systems for passengers. 6 Efficiency of passenger interline connection. 7 Baggage handling —enplaning and deplaning. 8 Convenient hotel -motel accommodations. 9 Efficient handling of visitors and sightseers at the airport. B Passenger vehicles 1 Public automobile flow separation from service and com- mercial traffic. 2 Public transportation to and from the airport. 3 Public parking —long-term (3 hours or more) and short- term (less than 3 hours). 4 Airport employee parking. 5 Airline employee parking. 6 Public auto service area. 7 Rental car parking and service areas. C Airport operations 1 Separation of apron vehicles from moving and parked aircraft. 2 Passenger flow separation in the terminal building (depart- ing and arriving). 3 Passenger flow separation from apron activities. 4 Concession availability and exposure to public. 5 Airfield security and prevention of unauthorized access to apron and airfield. 6 Air cargo and freight forwarder facilities. 7 Airport maintenance shops and facilities. 8 Airfield and apron drainage. 9 Airfield and apron utilities. i74 Terminal area and airport access plans 10 Utility plants, and heating and air conditioning systems. 11 Fire and rescue facilities and equipment. D Aircraft 1 Efficient aircraft flow on aprons and between terminal aprons and taxiways. 2 Easy and efficient maneuvering of aircraft parking at gate positions. 3 Aircraft fueling. 4 Heliport areas. 5 General aviation areas. 6 Noise, fumes, and blast control. 7 Apron space for staging and maneuvering of aircraft service equipment. E Safety 1 Enplaning and deplaning at aircraft. 2 Elevators, escalators, stairs, and ramps as to location, speed, and methods of access and egress. 3 People -mover systems as to location, speed, methods of ac- cess and egress. 4 Road crossings as to protection of pedestrians. 5 Provisions for disabled persons. The planner must also take into consideration expansion capabilities to accommodate increasing passenger volumes and aircraft gate po- sitions. In addition, the planner must provide a proper balance be- tween capital investment, aesthetics, operation, and maintenance costs, and passengers and airport revenues. Specific planning criteria are developed for the aforementioned fac- tors and for major terminal area components. Information for termi- nal requirements is obtained from the air carriers, general aviation interests, airport concessionaires, airport management, and special technical committees. The criteria are analyzed and agreed upon by all parties involved before it is incorporated in the master plan. It is essential that coordination with airport interests and users be ef- fected before the final selection of a terminal area concept is made. Terminal building design concepts Airport terminal buildings can be categorized as either centralized, decentralized, or a combination of the two (hybrid). Centralized Terminal area plans 175 passenger processing means all the facilities for ticketing, baggage check -in, security, customs, and immigration are all done in one building and used for processing all passengers using the building. Advantages and disadvantages of a centralized passenger processing terminal are as follows: Advantages 1 Centralizes airline, airport, and international processing per- sonnel, thus reducing costs. 2 Facilitates control of passengers —transfers and security. 3 Provides for simplified vehicular and pedestrian information systems. 4 Centralizes passenger services and amenities. Disadvantages 1 Generates vehicular congestion at curbside. 2 Creates pedestrian congestion at check -in processing areas. 3 Develops long walking distances from parking areas to pro- cessing areas. 4 Limits expansion. Decentralized passenger processing means the passenger handling facilities are provided in smaller units and repeated in one or more buildings. Advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized passen- ger processing terminal are as follows: Advantages 1 optimizes the level of service/convenience for passengers. 2 Minimizes walking distances. 3 Clarifies circulation, providing direct passenger flow. 4 Disperses vehicular circulation for curbside drop-off and park- ing. 5 Provides potential for growth through modular construction. 6 Accommodates diverse modes of transportation for passenger access/egress. Disadvantages 1 Necessitates decentralization of personnel for airline, airport, and governmental processing activities. 2 Increases capital costs per gate. 3 Increases operating and maintenance costs. 176 Terminal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans 177 There are four terminal building design concepts, each of which can be used with varying degrees of centralization: (1) gate arrival; (2) pier finger•, (3) satellite; and (4) transporter. These concepts are shown in Fig. 6-2. Gate arrival The gate arrival concept is a centralized layout that is aimed at reducing the walking distance by bringing the automobile as close as possible to the aircraft. The most fundamental type of gate arrival concept is the simple terminal. It consists of a single common waiting and ticketing area with several exits onto a small aircraft parking apron. It is adaptable to airports with low airline ac- tivity and is also adaptable to general aviation operations whether it is located as a separate entity on a large airline -served airport or is the operational center for an airport used exclusively by general avi- ation. Where the simple terminal serves airline operations, it will usually have an apron that provides close -in parking for three to six T T T T T T --%( + k Termmal Terminal Terminal Simple Linear Curvilinear I Terminal I (B) Pier finger terminals (A) Gate arrival terminals (C) Pier satellite terminal Q Terminal (E) Transporter 6-2 Terminal building design concepts. (D) Remote satellite terminal commercial transport aircraft. Where the simple terminal serves gen- eral aviation only, it is within convenient walking distance of aircraft parking areas and adjacent to an aircraft service apron. The simple terminal normally consists of a single4evel structure where access to aircraft is afforded by a walk across the aircraft parking apron. The layout of the simple terminal takes into account the possibility of lin- ear extension for terminal expansion. The linear or curvilinear terminal concept is merely an extension of the simple terminal concept —that is, the simple terminal is re- peated in a linear extension to provide additional apron frontage, more gates, and more room within the terminal for passenger pro- cessing. The more sophisticated linear terminals often feature a two -level structure where enplaning passengers are processed di- rect from curb to aircraft on one level while the other level is used by deplaning passengers for baggage claim and access to ground transportation. Passenger walking distance from curb through ter- minal to aircraft is short, usually 75 to 100 feet. The linear configu- ration also lends itself to the development of adequate, close -in public parking. Ample curb frontage for loading and unloading ground transportation vehicles is provided with each extension of the linear terminal and there is a direct relationship of enplaning or deplaning curb frontage to departing or arriving aircraft. Linear ter- minals can be expanded with almost no interference to passenger processing or aircraft operations. Expansion may be accomplished by linear extension of the existing structure or by developing two or more linear terminal units. The linear concept does not require long concourses, fingers, satel- lites, or service buildings, but it does not lend itself to common fa- cilities such as waiting rooms, concessions, ticket counters, or hold rooms. These facilities are usually repeated with each linear exten- sion. At large airports, the concept can also require an extensive sys- tem of directional signs because enplaning passengers must not only be directed to the correct airline area but also to the correct passen- ger processing module within that area. Another problem with the concept is that on a return flight to the airport, passengers might find that the deplaning module is located a long distance from where they parked the cars at the enplaning module. These factors must be taken into account in comparing the operating and construction costs of the linear terminal with other concepts. The configuration of the space occupied by the linear concept must also be compared with the space and configurations of other concepts in determining their compatibility with particular airport situations. termimai area plans tty Pier finger The pier finger terminal concept evolved in the 1950s when gate concourses were added to simple terminal buildings. Since then, very sophisticated forms of the concept have been developed with the addition of hold rooms at gates, jetways, and aircraft loading bridges, and vertical separation of the ticketing check -in function from the baggage claim function; however, the basic concept has not changed in that the main terminal building is used to process passen- gers and baggage while the finger or pier provides a means of en- closed access from the central terminal to aircraft gate. Aircraft are parked at gates along the pier, as opposed to the satellite concept, where they are parked in a cluster at the end of a concourse. Walking distances through finger terminals are long, averaging 400 feet or more. Curb space must be carefully planned because it de- pends on the length of the central terminal and is not related to the total number of gates afforded by fingers. This is particularly true of deplaning curbs near centralized baggage claim facilities. Although the finger concept has afforded one of the most economi- cal means of adding gate positions to existing terminals, its use for expansion is limited because it takes valuable apron space. Planners also must be aware not to add new pier fingers without providing adequate space for passenger processing in the main terminal. Satellite terminals The primary feature of the satellite terminal concept is the provision of a single terminal (with all ticketing, bag- gage handling, and ancillary services) that is connected by concourses to one or more satellite structures. The features of the satellite concept are very similar to those of the finger concept except that aircraft gates are located at the end of a long concourse rather than being spaced at even intervals along the concourse. Satellite gates are usually served by a common hold room rather than individual hold rooms. Another feature is that the concourse can be located underground (remote satellite), thereby providing space for aircraft taxi operations between the main terminal and the satellite. The distance from the main terminal to a satellite is usually well above the average distance to gates found with the finger concept; therefore, people -mover systems are provided between terminal and satellite at many airports to reduce walking distances. One of the advantages of the satellite concept is that it lends itself to a compact central terminal with common areas for processing passengers. International terminal lobby at San Francisco International Auport. San Francam lnteinauonW Xcp ft In some instances where terminal area space is limited, structural park- ing is provided above the central terminal building. Aircraft maneuvering areas are required around satellites so that push -out tug operations do not cause aircraft to block active taxi- ways. Wedge-shaped aircraft parking positions around the satellite also tend to crowd the operation of aircraft servicing equipment. Terminals developed under the satellite concept are difficult to ex- pand without reducing ramp frontage or disrupting airport operations; therefore, increases in terminal capacity are usually effected by the ad- dition of terminal units rather than expansion of an existing unit. Mobile lounge or transporter The mobile lottnge or transporter concept is in use at a number of airports including Dulles Interna- tional and Tampa International airports. It is sometimes called the remote aircraftparking concept. Aircraft parking aprons are remote from the terminal building. The mobile lounges transport passengers from the building to aircraft and can be used as hold rooms at terminal building gate positions. In this concept, the aircraft gate po- sitions are placed in parallel rows at required spacings with mobile lounge and service vehicle roads running between the parallel rows 180 Terminal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans 181 Vehicular circular drive at the GreaterPtttsburgh International Airport. cea wwn.wegne co yPnowyreoM Of aircraft. Several sets of parallel aircraft parking rows can be pro- vided for ultimate development of gate positions. Airline operations buildings must be provided adjacent to aircraft parking aprons. With the mobile lounge concept, walking distances are held to a minimum because the compact terminal building contains common passenger processing facilities and curb frontage can be located di- rectly across the terminal building from mobile lounge gates. Build- ing and curb length, which is established in part by the number of mobile lounge gates, must be carefully planned to provide adequate frontage for enplaning and deplaning passengers. The concept has good expansion capability in that capacity can be increased by the addition of mobile lounges and the main terminal and aprons can be expanded without the addition of extensive con- courses, fingers, or satellites. With the mobile lounge concept, addi- tions can be made with little impedance to airport operations and aircraft movements. Aircraft maneuvering capability is excellent with this concept. Remote aircraft parking can reduce taxi time and distance to runways and avoid aircraft congestion next to terminal building facilities. This also removes the aircraft noise and jet blast problem from the building area. Mobile lounges must be capable of mating with various aircraft sill heights and terminal building floor heights. In comparing the mobile lounge concept with other concepts, the cost of independent terminal and service buildings and the purchase, operation, and maintenance of mobile lounges must be considered. -The time re- quired to move passengers between terminal and aircraft by mobile lounge also has to be taken into consideration by the planner. These concepts are embodied in pure form only at a few airports that have been built on entirely new sites, such as Dallas -Fort Worth (Fig. 6-3)• At most airports the design of the terminal building has evolved and been modified in response to traffic growth and local conditions, giving rise to a hybrid that incorporates features of two or more of the basic Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport 6-3 Pure concept (curvilinear gate arrival). Termini area and airport access plans concepts (Figs. 6-4 and 6-5). At airports with land available adjacent to the existing facility, the design has tended to evolve into a pier finger arrangement, sometimes with separate unit terminals for commuter air- lines or groups of new air carriers for whom there is not room in the main terminal. At airports where the terminal has grown to the limits of available land area, satellite terminals and remote parking have typically developed. Transporter and satellite terminal concepts utilizing people - moving equipment have been adopted at some airports to enhance the attractiveness of the terminal for passengers because they eliminate the extreme walking distances associated with long piers extending from central terminals. Overestimation or underestimation of traffic volume or the type of service to be provided can sometimes render even a well -conceived design inef- ficient or inappropriate. Dallas -Fort Worth Airport, for example, was planned with the expectation that origin -destination traffic would pre- dominate. Since airline deregulation, the growth of hub and spoke net - Baggage claim area Buses Car rental Hotel/motel reservation phones Limousine service Lounges Baggage service no flights from LGA Appropmate walking distance from one end of the terminal to the other is 1300 feet 6-4 Hybrid concept (separate concourses with transporters). 184 Terminal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans 185 works, which gpically requires passengers to change planes at the air- port, has thwarted the effectiveness and convenience of the design. At Chicago O'Hare Airport, the need to adapt the concourses for passenger security screening has created long and circuitous routes for transferring passengers. Efforts to encourage greater use of Dulles Airport in Virginia for short- and medium -length domestic flights have been hindered by the design of the terminal because the need to go from apron to termi- nal and back again by mobile lounges greatly increases the time and inconvenience of interline connection. New York Kennedy Airport, planned with separate terminals for major airlines, is well suited for ori- gin -destination passengers and for transfers to flights on the same airline, but very inconvenient for interlining domestic passengers and those com- ing in on international flights and continuing to other U.S. destinations. Clearly, no single design is best for all circumstances. Traffic patterns, i traffic volume, and flow characteristics (peaking), the policies of indi- vidual carriers using the airport, and local considerations (esthetics and civic pride) dictate different choices from airport to airport and from one ;S time to another. The airport planner, who is required to anticipate con-ditions 10 to 15 years in the future, must often resort to guesswork. Even if the guess is correct initially, conditions change and result in a mismatch between terminal architecture and the traffic to be served. To -r guard against this, airport planners now tend to favor flexible designs t. that can be expanded modularly or offer the opportunity for low-cost, simple modifications as future circumstances might demand. { $ The passenger handling system The passenger handling system is a series of links and processes that a ¢ passenger goes through in transferring from one mode of transporta- z. tion to another. These processes include (1) access/egress; (2) ac- cess/processing interface; (3) processing; and (4) flight interface. Access/egress The access/egress link includes all of the ground transportation facilities, vehicles, and other modal transfer facilities required to move the passenger to and from the airport. Included are: 1 Highways. 2 Rail and metropolitan train service. 3 Autos, taxicabs, buses, and limousine service. t� 4 V/STOL facilities. 5 Transfer stations --off- and on -airport parking sites and rail stations. Access/processing interface The next link or process is the ac- cesWprocessing interface, in which the passenger makes the transi- tion from the vehicular mode of transportation to pedestrian movement into the passenger processing activities. Activities here include loading and unloading of passengers from vehicles at curb- side and pedestrian circulation from surface and parking facilities. Facilities include: 1 Vehicular circular drive for loading and unloading passengers. 2 Sidewalks, shuttle buses, and other automated conveyance systems to and from parking facilities. 3 Bus stops, taxi stands, and limousine stops. Passenger processing The passenger processing link accom- plishes the major processing activities required to prepare the pas- senger for using air transportation. Primary activities include ticketing, baggage check -in, security, and passport check on the en- planing cycle, and baggage claim, passport check, and customs check on the deplaning cycle. Facilities include: 1 Ticketing and baggage check -in counters. 2 Counters for security, customs, health, and immigration. 3 Terminal waiting lobbies. 4 Baggage claim area. Flight information Display Systems (FLDS) at the entrance to the west wing of the D gates atilfcCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, ArV CWk County �Oa�eMc�Arx�wn 186 Terminal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans 187 r�a International Satellite Terminal atMamt International Airport. Mea Dade AAaeadNpa=ent Pier finger with loading bridges at Baltimore -Washington InternationalAirport. FedMMAvu Admau9eaeon Spanning 31,000 square feet, the atrium is a focal point of the main terminal at Orlando International Airport. Oeaia Oda OAvaaonA ty 5 Visitor departure and arrival waiting areas. 6 Space for passenger movement and circulation. 7 Visitor observation area and lounges. 8 Public service areas including restrooms, baggage lockers, first aid facilities, lost and found, nursery, TV lounge, hotel - reservation desks, post office, and place of worship. 9 Information booths and displays for flight schedules and other flight -related announcements, and for giving directions for movement within the terminal building. 10 Eating and drinking facilities including snack shops, coffee shops, bars, restaurants, private banquet rooms, kitchens, au- tomatic food dispensers, and water fountains. 11 Concessions, including news/flowers/giftvbooks/candy, beauty, and barber shops, cleaning/valer, banks, car rental agencies, in- surance, and duty-free shops, currency exchange services, tourist information/accommodation services (at international airports). Flight interface The flight interface provides the link between the passenger processing activities and the flight. Facilities include: Gate lounges and counters. Moving sidewalks, buses, and mobile lounges (transporters). Loading facilities including jetways, nose bridges, stairs, and escalators. Facilities for transferring between flights including corridors, waiting areas, and mobile conveyance facilities. Facilities for airport operations and management The terminal building normally houses the facilities for airport oper- ations and management. These include: 1 Office space for airport administrative and operations personnel. and equipment. Repair shops and offices. Mechanical/utility system space such as air conditioning and heating, boilers and water supply, electrical service and equip- ment, elevator -escalator machinery rooms, emergency equip- ment (generators), and communications (telephones and radio). Facilities for airline operations Space in the term airline operations: available for the following 1 Operations offices adjacent to passenger handling counters. 2 Control/dispatch offices for such flight -related activities flight planning and associated administrative duties. 3 Hospitality/VIP lounges. 4 Employee/aircrew lounges. 5 Telecommunications facilities. Baggage handling facilities, equipment, and baggage carts. Facilities for government agencies While government agencies might not necessarily be housed in tf'ie terminal building, space for their functions must be provided near the passenger handling system. These include the FAA, weather ser- vice, postal service, customs, immigration and naturalization, agri- culture, health, and security services. Passenger flow through the terminal A terminal building is designed around the passengers' needs and wants. By locating passenger processing points conveniently and in a logical order, terminal designers aim to keep passengers moving through the system in a smooth flow with a minimum of delay; how- ever, passenger traffic follows an irregular pattern, peaking at certain times of the day and year, so public areas must be large enough to accommodate peak crowds including friends and relatives. Passengers can be divided into three primary groups: (2) international; and (3) transfer. Domestic passengers The domestic long -haul or short -haul busi- ness traveler generally arrives at the terminal shortly before depar- ture, frequently alone and with relatively little baggage. Business travelers prefer fast service. They are generally familiar with the air- port and need to be processed quickly. Leisure passengers generally arrive at the airport an hour or so be- fore departure, bringing much more luggage than the average busi- ness traveler. They are generally unfamiliar with the airport layout, which means more time spent in the terminal. These passengers, plus their friends and relatives, frequent the concessions to a greater degree than do business travelers. A domestic departure passenger would enter the general concourse (which is A in Fig. 6-6) and proceed to the ticket counter, where tick- ets are verified and baggage loads totalled. The passenger would then proceed to the security checkpoint (B) and onto the gate serv- ing his or her flight. A domestic arrival would depart the aircraft, leave the gate area, go to the baggage claim area (C) to pick up lug- gage, and depart the airport terminal via the general concourse (A). m t Y 14�r =�iY s Skyride,, Miami'International Airport. Mea atl Avaoo pa eat Internationalpassengers International flights are similar to long - haul flights and possess many of the -characteristics of those flown by leisure passengers. Passengers tend to check in early because processing time for international flights is longer. Consequently, they tend to utilize the concessions and other facilities to a great degree. An international departure follows a pattern similar to that of the do- mestic departure. The traveler proceeds from the general concourse (A), after ticket verification and baggage check -in to passport control (D), then through security (E) on to a specific concourse (area be- tween the general concourse and gate area), and then to a gate area. An international arrival leaves the aircraft and goes directly to immi- gration, passport, and health control M. The arrival passenger then proceeds to the baggage claim area (C). The passenger then goes to the customs area (G) for an inspection of luggage and then on to the general concourse (A) to leave the terminal. Transfer passengers A transfer passenger is one who transfers from one flight to a connecting flight. The domestic transfer passen- ger simply proceeds from one specific concourse to the boarding gate of the next flight. The transfer passenger flow is somewhat complicated when domestic and international flights are mixed. A domestic arrival passenger transferring to an international departure must go to the airline ticket counter for a passport verification before proceeding to the international gate. 190 Terminal area plans 193 Loading bridges are pan of the flight interface. o ' An international arrival passenger goes through immigration and the baggage claim area after departing the aircraft. The traveler then pro- ceeds through customs for an inspection check and on to the gen- eral concourse to purchase a ticket for the domestic departure. An international traveler transferring to another international flight gen- erally goes directly to an international transit lounge, then proceeds to the international departure gate for the connecting flight. Vertical distribution of passenger flow Many of the larger airports distribute the passenger flow over several levels within the airport terminal. The primary purpose of distribut- ing passenger processing activities over several levels is to separate the flow of arriving and departing passengers. The question of how many levels a terminal building should have depends primarily on the volume of passengers. It is also influenced by the type of pas- sengers: domestic, international, and transfer. Figure 6-7 shows a cross section of the major functional areas in a multilevel passenger terminal. Departing passengers park their vehi- cles (1) and proceed via the bridge level (3) into the terminal or are dropped off at the vehicular circular drive (enplane drive) (5). Tick- eting lobby (6), concourse (11), and gate area (14) are all on the first level. Arriving passengers proceed from the gate area (14) through the concourse (11) to the baggage claim area (7). After claiming their baggage, they proceed to the parking facility (1) via the bridge level 7be underground transit mall at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport links the terminal buildings with the four domestic concourses. It offers three modes of transportation forpassengers and visitors. walk, step onto a moving sidewalk, or use the automated train system. H.uh.7E Mam nlelnaa Xl n (3) or are picked up at the ground level (deplane drive—e). Notice that the airport offices (10), mechanical, storage and maintenance fa- cilities (8) and service vehicle drive (2) are located above or below the passenger flow. Transit shuttles (9) and satellite transit tunnel (13) leading to a satellite terminal (normally for long -haul domestic or international flights) are located on the lower level. Variations in this basic design might occur when traffic volumes or type of traffic requires. For example, at large airports where intra-air- port transportation systems operate, a special level might be needed to provide access to these systems. Terminal building space requirements The terminal building is a complex major public -use facility serving the needs of passengers, the air carriers, visitors, airport administra- tion and operations, and concessionaires. Clearly, different objec- tives and space requirements are sought by each of these groups of users. Conflicts in objectives and space requirements often arise in planning passenger handling systems. Because the main users of the system are the passengers and the air carriers, it is important to rec- ognize the objectives that are sought in planning space requirements from the viewpoints of these two user groups: Terminal area plans 195 f; _T m mrno =w{� �NM V N(On For the passengers I Minimization of delays in processing. 2 Minimization of walking distance. _ 3 Protection from the elements: weather, noise, jet blast, and so forth. 4 Simplification of orientation and provision of comfort and convenience. For the air carriers I Minimization of operating costs per passenger handled. 2 Maximization of capacity per dollar invested. 3 Minimization of delays in operations. 4 Provision for sufficient capacity to handle expected demand. The above lists include only the major objectives for two users. Plan- ning objectives are established for other user groups; however, the space requirements are largely determined from the aforementioned objectives. A planner must consider these objectives in establishing criteria for space requirements. It has been recognized in airport planning that two sets of space cri- teria are needed. One is a set of criteria that can be used for general concept evaluation. This is a set of general considerations that the planner uses to evaluate and select among alternative concepts in a preliminary fashion prior to any detailed design and development. The other set of space criteria is the actual criteria for design and de- velopment. In this set, specific performance measures are needed in order to evaluate the likely operation of well -developed plans. While general concept evaluation criteria can be developed on the basis of experience and observation of existing terminal buildings, the more specific design and development criteria require the use of a number of analytic techniques for their generation. These include network models, critical path method (CPM), queuing models, and simulation models. A complete discussion of these techniques can be found in Planning and Design of Airports by Robert Horonjeff and Francis X. McKelvey. The most important general concept evaluation criteria for space re- quirements are: 194 IND lermtnal area and airport access plans Terminal area plans 197 Adequate space to accommodate passengers is exemplified in this picture showing a portion of the terminal lobby &Jacksonville International Airport. ea ma .smm a w w� 1 Ability of the facility to handle expected demand. 2 Compatibility with the expected aircraft fleet mix. 3 Flexibility for growth and response to advances in technology. 4 Compatibility with ground access systems. 5 Compatibility with the airport master plan. 6 Delay potential caused by the physical layout of the building. 7 Cost considerations. 8 Sociopolitical and environmental considerations. The most important specific design and development criteria for space requirements are: 1 Processing costs per passenger. 2 Walking distances for various types of passengers. 3 Passenger delays in processing. 4 Occupancy levels for lounges and corridors. 5 Aircraft maneuvering delays and costs. 6 Construction costs. 7 Operating and maintenance expenses. 8 Estimated revenues from concessionaires. Steps involved in determining space requirements Once the sets of criteria have been established, the next determination is the actual space requirements for the various users. The following is a general outline of the major steps involved in this process: 1 Number of passengers and types. The first step involves a forecast of the annual passenger volume. Next is a determi- nation of the approximate hourly volume. Planners refer to this figure as the typical peak -hour passenger volume or de - A moving sidewalk at Miami International Airport. M.Vo adaAr.W. oaaa .. ............. o .r......--" r. .' Baggage claim area atMcCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, NV. aaM cams Av .oev .t sign volume. The peak hour of an average day in the peak month is commonly used as the hourly design volume for ter- minal space. This figure is generally in the range of 3 to 5 per- cent of the annual volume. The type of passenger is broadly classed as domestic, inter- national, or transfer. A further breakdown by type would include such items as: (a) arriving or departing, (b) with or without checked baggage, (c) mode of access to or egress from the airport —automobile, bus, limousine, train, or helicopter, (d) scheduled, charter, or general aviation flight, and (e) any other characteristics that might be relevant to the particular airport. The forecasted volume of passengers is then broken down by type, including subcategories. 2 Passenger type by facility. A matrix is developed matching passenger types and volumes with the various facilities in the terminal. These would include such areas as the ticket lobby, restrooms, baggage claim area, waiting rooms, eating facilities, and so forth. Areas for servicing international passengers would include public health, immigration, customs, agricul- ture, and visitor waiting areas. By summing the volume of passengers in rows corresponding to the facilities, it is possi- ble to approximate the total load on each facility. 3 Determining space requirements. The actual space require- ments are determined by multiplying the estimated number of passengers using each facility with an empirical factor to ar- rive at the approximate area or capacity of the facility re- quired. The empirical factor or constant is based upon experience acquired by planners and contemplates a reason- able level of service and occupancy. See Table 6-1. Baggage handling services Baggage handling services include a number of activities involving the collection, sorting, and distribution of baggage. An efficient flow of baggage through the terminal is an important element in the Table 6-1 Terminal building space requirements (hypothetical) Space required in 1,000 square feet per 100 typical Typical Area Facility peak -hour passengers peak -hour required (example) (empirical factor) passengers (square feet) Ticket lobby 1.5 400 6,000 Fast food facilities 0.8 250 2,000 Customs 2.6 300 7,800 Baggage claim 1.4 275 3,850 kurpurt access plans Passenger handling system. Much of the passenger delay in the ter- minal can be attributed to the baggage flow (Fig. 6-8). Departing passengers normally check their baggage at one of a number of sites including curbside check -in and at the ticket counter in the terminal building. The bags are then sent to a central sorting area, where they are sorted according to flights and sent to the ap- propriate gate to be loaded aboard the departing aircraft. Arriving baggage is unloaded from the aircraft and sent to the central sorting area. Sorted bags are sent to another flight (transfer passenger), to storage for later pickup, or to the baggage claim area. Airport access plans The airport access plans are an integral part of the master planning process. These plans indicate proposed routing of airport access to the central business district and to points of connection with existing or planned ground transportation arteries. All modes of access are Car park Curbside Airport terminal Downtown Satellite (gate) Baggage handling. check -in check -in check -in check -in check -in -•:x y= `t'+' ,-'mac --•X" - considered, including highways, rapid transit, and access by vertical and short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft The estimated ca- pacity requirement for the various modes considered is determined Storage from forecasts of passengers, cargo, and aircraft operations. The air - Early Central baggage port access plans normally are general in nature because detailed check -in sorting Baggage plans of access outside the boundaries of the airport will be devel- and o ed b highway departments, transit authorities, and com rehen- delayed area area p y g y p p flights sive planning bodies. Segments of airport access Airport access is usually divided into two major segments: 1 Access from the central business district and suburban areas via highway and rapid transit systems to the airport boundary. 2 Access from the airport boundary via airport roads and rapid transit to parking areas and passenger unloading curbs at the terminal building. Departing flight Arriving flight The first segment is a part of the overall regional or urban trans- 6-8 Baggage,flow. portation system and serves general and airport traffic. State and lo- cal highway departments and local transit authorities will bear the 202 Terminal area and airport access plans Airport access plans 203 New 4,900-space parkinggarage at Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport. 9, aracw ,A.a 000wneo, major responsibility for the administration, design, and construction of this segment. Airport sponsors are responsible for developing the requirements of airport traffic that must be served within the first segment. They are also responsible for promoting the development of facilities to serve that demand. Regional, state, and local planning bodies are relied upon to bring together the general needs of urban transportation and the specialized needs of airports by the develop- ment of comprehensive transportation plans for metropolitan or re- gional areas as a whole. At the federal level, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment provide national inputs through programs such as the Federal Highway Grants -in -Aid Program, and urban transportation planning funds. With this diversification of responsibility, careful coordination is required if the first segment of the airport access problem is to be effectively resolved. The second segment of airport access, from the airport boundary to the parking area and terminal building unloading curbs, is primar- ily the responsibility of airport management. They plan and construct the second segment of access, although they are often assisted by the air carriers in this effort. Airport sponsors must take special care in planning on -airport access, although they are often assisted by the air carriers in this effort. Airport sponsors must take special care in planning on -airport access to ensure that it is compatible with off airport ground transportation plans and with ultimate terminal area develop- ment. The biggest problem concerning access stems from the fact that air- port travel tends to peak in the same morning and afternoon periods as does general urban and suburban travel. The first segment of ac- cess traffic is made up of general urban travelers, and airport pas- sengers, visitors, and employees. General urban travelers drop out after the first segment, leaving only the airport traffic in the access system. Because most visitors ride in the same vehicle with passen- gers during access, they do not add to the peaking problem except for congestion within the terminal building. Airport -based employ- ees do add to the peaking problem because they ride in separate ve- hicles. Airport access facilities are designed on the basis of typical peak -hour traffic. At some of the busiest airports, congestion rises in the morning, remains almost constant throughout the day, and does not taper off until evening. Rapid transit is an alternative to relieve access problems to some of the most congested airports. An example is in Cleveland, where an extension of the city subway line carries passengers from downtown to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. In conjunction with the existing access highway system, it is a quick and practical airport ac- cess mode. Vehicle parking Parking facilities at or near the airport must be provided for (1) air- line passengers; (2) visitors accompanying passengers; (3) specta- tors; (4) people employed at the airport; (5) car rentals and limousines; and (i) people having business with the airport tenants. A separate parking facility is normally provided for employees. At some of the major airports, an employee parking lot is often several miles from the terminal area. Employees are bused to the airport from the outlying facility. Buses run on a regular schedule around the clock. The car -rental parking area is normally close to the terminal building in order to minimize the passenger walking distance. Normally this close -in facility will only accommodate cars that have been reserved. other rental cars are often parked in a special area away from the terminal building and driven to the car -rental area upon request. 204 Terminal area and airport access plans Review questions 205 Departing passengers normally deposit rental cars in the special area and are bused to the terminal area. This is a common arrangement at many large airports. Public parking facilities are provided for airline passengers, visitors, and spectators. The major goal here is to locate this area as close as possible to the terminal building in order to minimize walking dis- tance. Most of the major airports have separate parking facilities for short- term and long-term parkers. Surveys at a number of major airports indicate that a large number (75 percent or more) park 3 hours or less and a much smaller group parks from 12 hours to several days or longer; however, short-term parkers typically represent only about 20 percent of the total maximum vehicle accumulation. Con- sequently, many airports designate the most convenient (closest area) spaces to short-term parkers, who represent the highest num-. her of users. At some very busy airports, long-term parking is provided off the air- port property at reduced rates by private concessionaires who pro- vide shuttle transportation to the airport for their customers. Key terms terminal area centralized passenger processing decentralized passenger processing gate arrival simple terminal linear or curvilinear terminal pier finger terminal satellite terminal mobile lounge or transporter passenger handling system access/egress link access/processing interface passenger processing link flight interface general concept evaluation criteria for design and development typical peak -hour passenger volume (design volume) airport access plans Review questions 1 What is included in the "terminal area?" - Discuss the primary objective of the terminal area plans. • Describe the factors taken into consideration by airport planners in selecting the terminal area concept. 2 What are the advantages and disadvantages of the centralized and decentralized passenger processing system? • Describe the four basic terminal building design concepts including their advantages and disadvantages. How can some of the best plans be thwarted by the realities of pre- sent airport -airway systems? 3 Describe the four components of the passenger handling sys- tem. What facilities are required for the following: airport op- erations and management, airline operations, and government agencies. • Why is the terminal building primarily designed around pas- senger needs and wants? Describe the passenger flow (ar- riving and departing) through the terminal building for the following passengers: domestic, international, and transfer. • What is the primary purpose of the vertical distribution of passenger flow? 4 List the primary objectives in planning space requirements for the passengers and the air carriers. • Define general concept evaluation and criteria for design and development. • Discuss the steps involved in determining space require- ments. • Describe the baggage flow through the terminal building for arriving and departing passengers. Why must airport management and planners work very closely with other governmental bodies in developing airport access plans? 206 Terminal area and airport access plans Sugested readings 207 • What are the two segments of airport access? • What is the biggest problem concerning access roads? • Describe the parking facilities required at a major airport. Suggested readings Airport Access --A Planning Guide. DOT/Federal Highway Administra- tion, Transmittal 113, Vol. 26, Appendix 55. Washington, DC: GPO, October 1971. Airport Ground Access. Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations pursuant to Sen- ate Report No. 95-268. Washington, DC: GPO, May 1975. Airport Land Banking. DOT/FAA/Office of Aviation System Plans, FAA Report #ASP-77-7. Washington, DC: GPO, August 1977. Airport Landside Capacity. Special Report 159• Washington, DC: Trans- portation Research Board, 1975. Airport Landside Planning and Operations Special Report 1373. Wash- ington, DC: Transportation Research Board,1992. Airport Terminal and Landside Design and Operation. Special Report 1273. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1990. Doganis, Rigas. 7be Airport Business New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1992. Hart, Walter. The Airport Passenger Terminal. Malabar, FL: Krieger Pub- lishing Co., 1991. Horonjeff, Robert, and Francis X. McKelvey. Planning and Design ofAir- ports. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. Measuring Airport Landside Capacity. Special Report 215. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1987. DOT/FAA advisory circulars 150/5320-14 Airport Landscaping for Noise Control Purposes 150/5360-9 Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities at Non -Hub Locations 150/5360-11 Energy Conservation for Airport Buildings 150/5360-12 Airport Signing and Graphics 150/5360-13 Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities 150/5360-9 Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities at Non -Hub Locations 150/5070-6 Airport Master Plans 150/5360-6 Airport Terminal Building Development With Federal Participation 150/5360-7 Planning and Design Considerations for Airport Terminal Building Development 150/5070-3 Planning the Airport Industrial Park 5 Airport layout and land use plans Outline • Introduction: Phase three of the master plan • Airport layout plan • Approach and clear zone layout • Land use plan Objectives When you have completed this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe the major items included in an airport layout plan drawing. • Identify the prominent airside facilities. • Describe the four basic runway configurations. • Highlight the importance of prevailing wind in planning runways. • Distinguish between the following runway classifications: visual, nonprecision instrument, and precision instrument. • Understand the importance of runway lighting and ILS. • Describe the basic principles involved in laying out taxiways. • Distinguish between holding areas and holding bays. • Describe the four basic aircraft parking positions. 133 • 134 Airport layout and land use plans Airport layout plan 135 • Explain each of the so-called imaginary surfaces described in FAR Part 77. • Discuss the importance of land use planning on and off the airport. Introduction: Phase three of the master plan The third phase of the airport master plan includes four compo- nents: the airport layout plan, the land use plan, terminal area plans, and airport access plans. This chapter covers the former two and Chapter 6 the latter two subjects. Once the airport requirements (phase one) have been determined and the site (phase two), new or existing, has been selected, the master plan process moves on to the development of the airport lay- out plan. The development of the airport layout plan will establish the actual configuration of runways, taxiways, and aprons, and will set aside areas for the establishment of terminal facilities. Preliminary estimates of facility requirements were made under demand/capac- ity analysis in phase one of the master plan. The location of air nav- igation facilities and runway approach zones are also incorporated in the airport layout plan. i The land use plan within the airport boundary sets aside areas for i establishment of the terminal complex, maintenance facilities, com- mercial buildings, industrial sites, airport access, buffer zones, recre- ation sites, and other possible improvements as may be appropriate to the specific airport situation. The land use plan outside the airport boundary includes those areas affected by obstruction clearance cri- teria and noise exposure factors. The development of the terminal area plan and plans for facilities within the terminal area evolve from the airfield configurations and land use criteria established in the airport layout and land use plans. The airport access plan indicates the proposed routings of airport access to central business districts or to points of connection with existing or planned arterial ground transportation systems. Various modes of surface transportation are considered. The sizes of access facilities are based on airport access traffic studies. Because access facilities beyond airport boundaries are normally outside the juris- diction of airport sponsors, careful coordination is required with other areawide planning bodies. Airport layout plan The airport layoutplan is a graphic presentation to scale of exist- ing and proposed airport facilities and land uses, their locations, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to show conformance with applicable standards. It shows the air- port location, clear zones, approach areas, and other environmen- tal features that might influence airport usage and expansion capabilities. The airport layout plan also identifies facilities that are no longer needed and describes a plan for their removal or phase -out. Some areas might be leased, sold, or otherwise used for commercial and industrial purposes. The plan is always updated with any changes in property lines; airfield configuration involving runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking apron size and location; buildings; auto parking; cargo areas; navigational aids; obstructions; and entrance roads. Airport layout plan drawing The airport layout plan drawing includes the following items: the airport layout, location map, vicinity map, basic data table, and wind information (Fig. 5-1). Airport layout The airport layout is the main portion of the drawing. It depicts the existing and ultimate airport development and land uses drawn to scale and includes as a minimum the following information: • Prominent airport facilities such as runways, taxiways, aprons, blast pads, extended runway safety areas, buildings, navaids, parking areas, roads, lighting, runway marking, pipelines, fences, major drainage facilities, segmented circle, wind indicators, and beacon. • Prominent natural and manmade features such as trees, streams, ponds, rock outcrops, ditches, railroads, powerlines, and towers. • Revenue -producing non -aviation -related property, surplus or otherwise, are outlined with current status and use specified. • Areas reserved for existing and future aviation development and services such as for general aviation fixed -base operations, heliports, cargo facilities, airport maintenance, and so forth. r .... r "—y—tutu IYO4 ube Plans Airport layout plan 137 5-1. Airpon layoutplan. I--- Aft. Acft sY tlOn • Areas reserved for nonaviation development, such as industrial areas, motels, and so forth. • Existing ground contours. • Fueling facilities and tiedown areas. • Facilities that are to be phased out. • Airport boundaries and areas owned or controlled by the sponsor, including Nvigation easements. • Approach and clear zone outlines. • Airport reference point with latitude and longitude given based on U.S. Geological Survey grid system. • Elevation of runway ends, high and low points, and runway intersections. • True azimuth of runways (measured from true north). • North point —true and magnetic. AIRPORT LAYOUT .LAM 5-1. Continued. ' Pertinent dimensional data —runway and taxiway widths and runway lengths, taxiway -runway -apron clearances, apron dimensions, building clearance lines, clear zones, and parallel runway separation. Location map The location map shown in the lower left-hand side of the airport layout plan drawing is drawn to scale and depicts the air- port, cities, railroads, major highways, and roads within 25 to 50 miles of the airport. Vicinity map The vicinity map shown in the upper left-hand side of the airport layout plan drawing shows the relationship of the airport to the city or cities, nearby airports, roads, railroads, and built-up areas. Basic data table The basic data table contains the following infor- mation on existing and ultimate conditions where applicable: a• 138 Airport layout and land use plans, Airport layout plan 139 • Airport elevation (highest point of the landing areas). • Runway identification such as 9/27. • Percent effective runway gradient for each existing and proposed runway. • Percent of wind coverage by principal runway, secondary runway (if applicable), and combined coverage. • Instrument landing system (ILS) runway when designated, dominant runway otherwise, existing and proposed. • Normal or mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month. • Pavement strength of each runway in gross weight and type of main gear (single, dual, and dual tandem) as appropriate. • Plan for obstruction removal, relocation of facilities, and so forth. Wind information A unnd rose is always included in the airport layout plan drawing with the runway orientation superimposed. Crosswind coverage and the source and period of data is also given. Wind infor- mation is given in terms of all-weather conditions, supplemented by IFR weather conditions where IFR operations are expected. Airport components The airport is a complex transportation hub serving aircraft, passen- gers, cargo, and surface vehicles. It is customary to classify the com- ponents of an airport into two major categories: airside facilities and landside facilities (Fig. 5-2). Airside facilities, sometimes called the aeronautical surfaces, or more simply the airfield, are those on which aircraft operations are carried out. Principally, they are the runways where aircraft take off and land, the taxiways used for movement between the runway and the terminal, and the apron and gate areas where passengers em- bark and debark and where aircraft are parked. Because the airspace containing the approach and departure paths for the airfield has an important effect on runway utilization, it is also customary to include terminal area airspace as part of the airside. The landside facilities are essentially those parts of the airport serv- ing passengers, including surface transportation. It includes the ter- minal buildings, which include passenger loading and waiting areas, Enroute Airspace Terminal Airspace — — — — ---------= — — — — — — — — — — — Aircraft operations Runway -mo Holdmg Exit area taxiway Holding Taxiway system bay T N o Apron -gate area n Passenger operations a Airport roads and transportation facilities Airport ground access system 5-2. Airport Components ticket counters, baggage handling facilities, restaurants, shops, car - rental facilities, and the like. Loading, handling, and storage areas for air cargo and mail, often separately located, are also part of the ter- minal complex. The landside also includes the vehicular circular drive, parking facili- ties, and, in some cases, rail rapid transit lines and stations that are part of a larger urban mass transit system. Customarily, only roadways and transportation facilities on the airport property are considered part of the landside, even though they are actually extensions of, and integral with, the urban and regional transportation network. The discussion that follows will focus in on the airside facilities and land use plan. Landside facilities will be taken up in the next chapter. 140 Airport layout and land use plans An aerial view of Greensboro/High PoiniMinston-Salem Airport showing airside and landside facilities. ea wd:.smm.aw Ws 1 Airside facilities Prominent airside facilities include runways including their classifi- cations, marking and lighting, instrument landing system, taxiways, iholding areas and bays, ground control, and parking. ;{ Runways There are many airport runway configurations. The FAA includes 22 different layouts in their advisory circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity Criteria Used in Long -Range Planning. The basic runway configurations are (1) single runway; (2) parallel runways; (3) open-V runways; and (4) intersecting runways (Fig. 5-3). 1 Single runway. The single runway is the simplest of the con- figurations. Under VFR conditions it can accommodate up to 99 predominantly light twin -engine and single -engine piston aircraft (type D&E) operations per hour. The capacity under i IFR conditions is reduced to 42 to 53 operations per hour de- pending on the aircraft mix and navigational aids available at the particular field. Runway configuration PHOCAP(3) Aircraft FAA layout Description mix (1) PANCAP (2) IFR VFR Single runway 1 215.000 53 99 Single A -ate (arrivals = 2 195.000 52 76 departures) 3 180,000 44 54 4 170,000 42 45 B Less than 2,500' Close parallels 1 385.000 64 198 �-` 2 330.000 63 152 3 295.000 55 108 Intermediate 4 1 280,000 425,000 54 79 90 198 C 2,500' to 4.300' parallels 2 390,000 79 152 -�� 3 355.000 79 108 Parallel - —f 4 330,000 74 90 D 4,300' or more Far parallels 1 430,000 106 198 2 390.000 104 152 3 360.000 88 108 --�-- 4 340.000 84 90 -�-T Dual -lane 1 770,000 128 396 H 4.300'or more runway 2 660,000 126 304 -�� 3 590,000 110 216 -�— 4 560,000 108 180 Open V. dependent 1 420.000 71 198 K, — operations away 2 335.000 70 136 from intersection 3 300,000 63 94 Open-V 4 295,000 60 84 Open V.dependent 1 235,000 57 108 Kz _ /J" operations toward 'sw`� 2 220,000 56 86 intersection 3 215,000 50 66 4 200.000 50 53 L, Two intersecting at 1 375.000 71 175 near threshold 2 310,000 70 125 Direction of CPS 3 275.000 63 83 4 255.000 60 69 Intersecting Two intersecting 1 220,000 61 99 Lz in middle 2 195.000 60 76 3 195.000 53 58 L3 Two intersecting at 4 1 190.000 220,000 47 55 52 99 Direction far threshold 2 195,000 54 76 of ORS 3 180,000 46 54 4 175.000 42 57 Percentage Key. (1) Aircraft mix 1 2 3 4 Type A - 4 engine jet and larger 0 0 20 60 Type B - 2 and 3-engine let, 4-engine piston, and turbo prop 0 30 40 20 Type C - executive let and transport (ype twin -engine piston 10 30 20 20 Type D & E - light twin engine piston and single -engine piston 40 20 0 (2) PANCAP - Practical Annual Capacity (3) PHOCAP - Practical Hourly Capacity 5-3. Airport runway configurations. 142 Airport layout and land use plans Airport layout plan 143' 2 Parallel runways There are basically four types of parallel runways: (1) close [less than 2,500 feet between runways], (2) intermediate [2,500 to 4,300 feet between runways], (3) far [more than 4,300 feet between runways], and (4) dual -lane [two close parallel runways separated by 4,300 feet or more]. The capacities of parallel runway configurations vary consid- erably depending upon the number of runways and the spac- ing. With an aircraft mix of predominantly type D and E, operations per hour vary under IFR conditions between 64 for close parallels to 128 for a dual -lane configuration. 3 Open-V runways. Runways that diverge from different direc- tions and do not intersect are classified as open-V runways. When there is little or no wind, both runways can be used si- multaneously. Open-V runways revert to a single runway when winds are strong from one direction. Operations in- crease significantly when takeoffs and landings are made away from the V. When the operations are toward the V, the hourly capacity is reduced by almost 50 percent for Type D and E aircraft during VFR conditions. 4 Intersecting runways. Two or more runways that cross each other are referred to as intersecting runways. An intersecting runway configuration is utilized when there are relatively strong winds during the year from more than one direction. Like open-V runways, intersecting runways revert to a single runway when the winds are strong from one direction. If winds are relatively light, both runways can be used simulta- neously. The capacity of intersecting runways greatly depends upon the location of the intersection and the way the runways are operated. The highest capacity is achieved when the inter- section is close to the takeoff end and landing threshold as shown in layout Lr. From a planning standpoint, a single -direction runway configuration can achieve greater capacity and ease air traffic control. Routing air- craft in a single direction is less complex than routing in multiple di= rections. In general, an open-V configuration will yield higher capacities than intersecting configurations. An analysis of the prevailing wind is essential in planning runways. The primary runway should be oriented as closely as possible to the direction of the prevailing winds. Aircraft that are landing and taking off can maneuver on a runway as long as the wind direction at right angles to the direction of travel (crosswind) is not exces- sive. The maximum allowable crosswind depends on the size of aircraft and the condition of the pavement surface. Large jet aircraft can maneuver in crosswinds as high as 40 knots, but it is diffi- cult to do so, and consequently, lower values are used for planning purposes. For all runways other than utility (constructed and intended for propeller -driven aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less), the FAA requires that "runways should be oriented so planes may be landed at least 95_percent of the time with crosswind components not exceeding 15 mph (13 knots)." For utility airports, the cross- wind component is reduced to 11.5 mph (10 knots). The "95 per- cent" criterion required by the FAA is applicable to all conditions of weather. Runway classifications and markings The FAA classifies runways as visual, nonprecision instrument, and precision instrument. A visual runway is intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA -approved layout plan. A nonprecision instrument runway is one having an instru- ment approach procedure using air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance for which straight -in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved. A precision instrument runway is one having an instrument approach procedure using an instrument landing system (ILS), or a precision approach radar (PAR). Figure 5-4 shows the standard markings required by the FAA for all visual and nonprecision instrument runways. Markings com- mon to all runways include (1) centerlines (2) designator and (3) holding indications. Additional markings for a nonprecision instru- ment runway include: (4) threshold marking and (5) fixed distance marker. Figure 5-5 shows the detailed markings of a precision instrument runway. Additional markings for this runway include: (6) touch- down zone markers; and (7) side stripes. Figure 5-6 shows the markings for a displaced threshold (available for takeoff or rollout but not for touchdown) and a relocated thresh- old (area preceding arrows unusable for takeoff or landing). Figure 5-7 shows the markings for intersecting runways. Figures 5-8 and 15-9 show the markings for closed runways and heliports. Vfsuaf ninmy Runway number sign Nonprecislon Instrument runway 5-4. Visual and nonprecision instrument runways. red.,WA.O4 AdWWsvab. Detail of precision instrument runway 2. Designator —runway is within 5e of 2000 magnetic,' t" indi- gates left runway of a parallel set lr O 0 5 Fixed distance marking— 7. Side stripes —solid line 1000 feet from approach end; shows lateral usable aiming point marker for jets runway pavement. �IiE�_ 0 eJi o AThreshold marking —beginning" of usable portion of runway 1- Runway centedine is dashed 6. Touchdown zone markings occur every 500 feet 3 Holding indicator 5-5. Detail ofprecision instrument runway. Fede AWtbnA ,balwn Runway lighting Runway lighting is extremely important for a pilot who might have flown for long hours in darkness. Sophisticated lighting systems are also essential for a rapid alignment check dur- ing daytime approaches if visibility is poor. For a pilot breaking out of low clouds, high -intensity approach lights are the only visual clue that the ground is near. In fog, even approach lights might hardly be visible, and the bright runway lights will guide the pilot after touchdown. Fog -plagued airports might have individual lights that peak at an intensity of 30,000 candelas (twice the illumination of a set of car headlights). To prevent disorientation, they can be dimmed from 100 percent for sunlight or fog, to 1 percent for a clear night. 'threshold indicators r- ..o itakeoff isplaced threshold —area ❑ith arrows available for or rollout but not for touchdown Relocated threshold —area preceding arrows unusable for takeoff or landing 5-6. Displaced and relocated thresholds. re���A a mAa No« Intersecting runways An instrument runway has priority over a visual one. Priority runway centerline markings will interrupt visual runway markings at intersection. .,� Two nonprecision instrument runways. Neither has priority at Intersection. \— o Runway 20L is a precision instrument runway whose markings have priority over both visual and nonprecision instrument runways. :( 5-7. Intersecting runway markings. �aerWA eo�Aa W,eeb� Failure of the electricity supply could be catastrophic to a landing jet, so most civil airports have emergency systems that switch automati- cally within 15 seconds of a failure, and those with all-weather facilities have a standby system that switches within 1 second. Figure 5-10 shows the lighting system for a precision instrument runway. Instrument runway landing system The guidance system for approach and landing now in use is the instrument landing system (I1S), which has been the standard system in the United States since 1941 146 Airport layout and land use plans Closed runways Temporarily closed runway sign is a sim- ple cross at both ends. A permanently closed runway will have the "x's" at inter- vals along its length. Closed taxiways have the same symbols but smaller and in yellow. 5-8. Closed runways. Fetleml AvmOm nWvmswoon c c U n ,H\ Civil heliport H Recommended for hospitals R Military heliport 5-9• Heliport markings. FeEemlA. Abnristra and is widely used by civil aviation throughout the world. ILS pro- vides guidance by radio beams that define a straight-line path to the runway at a fixed slope of approximately 3 degrees and 5 to 7 miles from the runway threshold. All aircraft approaching the airport un- der ILS guidance must follow this path in single file, spaced at inter- vals dictated by standards for safe longitudinal separation and the need to avoid wake turbulence (Fig. 5-11). m omom m?5 =a m=aS.�LmH�E rn�ma �_�mnm cnom a•- m m_c va-a=a m m m m m C N m N p n0OlmyO1_ C m O- m min noi9m AL U C�N.U.. UONm C a�aom==gl inon_m-m mpQ,= >'3o mt ma'rn�� O o O m Ol 3 U H J m U m N m L m N C V m "m�com��ttmo� c O.V� OLOI m mw m m m o= L n 0 nm n o m a 3 L o �m'�m�°t_pQE,Amw O C L Q m m m m> m m o c m N p m N O m N m m L C` m O >mn`a.am EQSm S-a Ogm 22.5 0- 0 pN T 3�30. cC ln- ul--Nn= 147 Airport layout plan 149 O L 6 C O O1 O m C t O.L > - 0.S.` —aNN,m m�wmwia am m.c� N rat O) Ln U"O O. O Q 0 L c`"a acima wo E.omrn m m�w'03°12 E.m- Ct N O.7 5 N U U Ol ,ym ��N O'C0N� 'N a3 o-0�>,�-a>`m`o U L j N a . g 0. U CO LEa-3uaimm O O L m O L v Q C L C fn N C L O W m 0 3: mJ cUS]!Ln N d V NL O N N g E E `o m ram""-'mc mEo 9 C7�a�m> The ILS consists of a localizer beacon beam radiating along the straight line of approach to the runway that activates a needle on the aircraft's ILS signal receiver and guides the pilot in the direction toward the runway centerline. This signal can be considered as an electronic extension of the centerline of the runway. The glideslope transmitter, set approximately 450 feet to one side of the runway, sends out a different electronic signal that activates a second nee- dle on the same ILS receiver and guides the pilot downward on a sloping path to the runway. This beam, angled at approximately 3 degrees to the horizontal, guides the aircraft down at a steady rate of descent. By checking a map or chart when nearing the airport, the pilot can navigate to a point or fix close enough to receive both these sig- nals, which will activate the two needles on the ILS receiver. The pilot then begins the descent. The needles will show how far to the right or left or how much above or below the aircraft is in re- lation to the precise electronic path the pilot must follow at the center of the intersection of the localizer and glideslope signals. The pilot's job is to fly the plane so as to keep the needles on the ILS receiver as close as possible to their center positions on the in- strument's face. z As the aircraft descends on the glideslope, it will pass through two electronic markers. The markers transmit vertical beams that pene- trate the localizer and glideslope beams and identify precise lateral positions. i The first or outer marker is located from 5 to 7 miles from the end of ti the runway. Its vertical beam activates a rapidly flashing blue light on the marker beacon receiver when the plan6 passes through. The ZO outer marker also has an audio signal —two dashes per second at a tone to further alert the pilot to the aircraft's position on the ylow Z glideslope. Z About 3,500 feet from the runway, the middle marker vertical beam N flashes an amber light on the marker beacon receiver. This marker's audio signal is a series of alternating dots and dashes at a high tone. kJust seconds after passing through the middle marker, depending 1-1 upon the decision height of landing category, the pilot should see d the approach lights. The decision height is the point where the pilot has to decide whether it is safe to land, or whether to pull up and abort the landing. 148 150 Airport layout and land use plans Airport layout plan 151 Another approach is the microwave landing system (mu), which has been in the development stage for a number of years. This system transmits a radio beam from left to right and right to left across the sky. By automatically timing the intervals between successive interceptions of the sweeping beam, the landing system can accurately calculate an aircraft's position relative to the runway. It is cheaper than the ILS to install at airports (although the aircraft equipment is more costly) and, because the beams spread more widely, it offers a number of alterna- tive approach paths. In 1995, the FAA canceled the MIS contract and further installations after installing only several units. The application of satellite technology holds the greatest opportu- nity to enhance the current landing system. It also should improve aviation system capacity, efficiency, and safety. The foundation for this optimism is the global positioning system (GPS), a satellite -based radio -navigation system operated and controlled by the United States Department of Defense (DoD). In December 1993, DoD de- clared GPS to be in initial operational capability with 24 satellites in orbit, available, and usable for satellite navigation. GPS achieves significantly better accuracies than most existing land - based systems because the system provides velocity information and because the satellite signals are propagated independently of the ground (thus, the system is less prone to ground -derived errors). Furthermore, because the satellite signals are available worldwide, GPS represents a unique opportunity for the international aviation community to start converging toward the goal of a single, integrated global navigation and landing satellite system. This will eventu- ally allow aviation users to reduce the number of different types of receivers required for navigation services for all phases of flight. Coupled with satellite communications, GPS will contribute to in- creased safety and efficiency of international civil aviation by sup- porting real-time surveillance of aircraft and reducing the separation requirements and increasing the number of flights possible on busy transoceanic flights. Taxiways The major function of taxiways is to provide access to and from the runways to other areas of the airport including the terminal area in an expeditious manner. Exit and entrance taxiways are gener- ally located at the ends of the runway and constructed at right angles to the runway. At busy airports where taxiing traffic moves simultane- ously in different directions, parallel one-way taxiways are often pro- vided. Taxiways are planned with the following principles in mind: 1 Aircraft that have just landed should not interfere with aircraft taxiing to take off. 2 Taxi routes should provide the shortest distance between the terminal area and the runways. 3 At busy airports, taxiways are normally located at various points along runways so that landing aircraft can leave the runways as quickly as possible. These are also referred to as exit taxiways or turnoffs. 4 A taxiway designed to permit higher turnoff speeds reduces the time a landing aircraft is on the runway. 5 When possible, taxiways are planned so as not to cross an ac- tive runway. At busy airports, blue edge lights mark the sides of the taxiway and sometimes green center lights mark the route to the active runway. Red stop bars might appear when another aircraft crosses its path. Standard taxiway markings are shown in Fig. 5-12. Holding areas Holding areas (commonly referred to as run-up areas) are located at or very near the ends of runways for pilots to make fi- nal checks and await final clearance for takeoff. These areas are gen- erally large enough so that if an aircraft is unable to take off, another aircraft can bypass it. The holding area normally can accommodate two or three aircraft and allow enough space for one aircraft to bypass another. Holding bays Holding bays are apron areas located at various points off taxiways for temporary storage of aircraft. At some airports where peak demand results in full occupancy at all gate positions, ground control will often route an aircraft to a holding bay until a gate be- comes available. Some holding bays, each the size of a football field, are located as close as 250 feet from the active runway. During peak hours, aircraft are held in the bay until given a takeoff position at which time they move to the holding area. See Fig. 5-13 for an ex- ample of a holding area and holding bay. Ground control and parking An aircraft landing at a major metropolitan airport might have to negotiate a mile or more of taxiways to reach the parking apron area. Pilots normally have a map of the airport layout, and taxiways are marked with lights and other signals. If a pilot loses the way despite the radioed instructions from controllers in the tower giving the route to be taken, an airport truck with a large "Follow Me" sign might be sent to lead the pilot onto the parking apron area. Airport layout and land use plans Taxiways There is no priority for direction of travel at intersecting taxiways. Turns at taxiway intersections may be made safely only if centerlines curve in desired direction. Taxiway markings extend beyond holding indications. However, aircraft must hold short of these lines before taxiing onto the runway unless prior clearance has been received from air traffic control. There is no priority for direction of travel at intersecting taxiways. Turns at taxiway intersections may be made safely only if centerlines curve in desired direction. Taxiways leading to visual runways at uncontrolled airports may also have hold lines Pilots should hold here and check for traffic on final approach before turning onto runway. 5-12. Taxiway markings. Fe waiAvwWnAdrtorvsua Lines painted on the concrete parking apron adjoining the taxiways lead the airline pilot to the final positioning. Linemen will greet the in- coming aircraft and direct the pilot with appropriate parking signals (Fig. 5-14). The pilot will attempt to keep the aircraft's nosewheel on the appropriate line while following the lineman's instructions. The aircraft's stopping point must be precise if the jetways (the telescopic walkways joining aircraft to terminal) are to reach the door and be in the correct position. Various optical or electrical devices assist in this maneuver. K�0" T _ 3 O E 0 LL.262 1 mm®m B � u 0 x 1 2 a 1 m1a 0 m � E2�'0 O O� Q a 3 i?'A cot O j \C\\V A =aan 0 153 . 11Put a tayuui ana tans use plans Airport layout plan 15T� rarmng apron. W Aircraft can be positioned at various angles with respect to the ter- minal building, but the nose -in parking position is the most fre- quently used at major airports (Fig. 5-15)• Normally, an aircraft will maneuver into the nose -in parking position under its own power; however, in order to leave the gate position, it has to be towed -out a sufficient distance to allow it to proceed under its own power. The nose -in parking position requires the smallest gate area per air- craft. It also causes lower noise levels and there is no jet blast toward the terminal building. Parking close to the building also facilitates passenger loading and unloading. Aircraft can also be parked in angled nose -in, angled nose -out, and parallel positions (Fig. 5-16). Generally, these positions are used at smaller airports with less traffic and fewer facilities and equipment. The big advantage of these positions is the ability of the pilot to ma- neuver in and out of gate positions without the need for towing. Airport layout plan report The airport layout plan drawing is normally accompanied by a writ- ten report that documents the following items: 1 Reasoning behind the design features such as demand/capac- ity analysis and so forth. 2 Basis and/or computation for the runway length design. 3 Basis for runway orientation if not aligned for maximum wind coverage. l 4 Low visibility wind data where available. Approach and clear zone layout The approach and clear zone layout is a graphic presentation to scale of the following items: 1 Areas.under the imaginary surfaces as defined in FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. 2 Existing and ultimate approach slopes and any height or slope protection established by local zoning ordinance. A plan and profile of the clear zones and approach areas showing the controlling structures and trees therein (usually the tallest object within a cluster) and their elevations. Also, roads, railroads, and pipelines that cross clear zones and approach areas are shown. . IXV ...ayuua anu,duu Ube plans Approach and dear zone layout 157 Move Turn to This bay ahead Turn to starboard Stop Cut Chocks Positioning pon _ _ ___engines away complete d 88 •- i r« Signalman's Daylight Darkness Daylight Darkness position Straight ahead To attract operator's p'L� attention �c( Q �A 'Z —n . f A k Daylight *� Darkness Daylight Darkness Turn to Remove right chocks 5-14. Lineman signals. Feaeeal ANauon ANNmsvaoan 5-15• Nose -in parking. Angled nose -in Angled nose -out Oki Terminal building 5-16. Aircraflparkingpositions. Parallel 4 Location and elevation of obstructions exceeding criteria in FAR Part 77. 5 For airports serving jet aircraft and within the boundaries defined by the imaginary surfaces given in FAR Part 77, an outline of all areas with present or potential concentrations of people is shown on the drawing. The primary type of devel- opment in these areas includes industrial developments, residential areas, ballparks, schools, and hospitals. For other airports, this information is shown for the areas under the ap- proach surfaces and at least 1,000 feet to either side of each runway or 500 feet from the nearest aircraft operational area. 6 In the approach areas, tall smokestacks, television, and radio transmission towers, garbage dumps, or other areas attracting a large number of birds, and any other potential hazard to air- craft flight. FAR Part 77 Obstruction clearance requirements at or near airports are contained in FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. An object that protrudes above the imaginary surfaces specified in this part is con- sidered an obstruction to air navigation. If the airport planner finds that there is an obstructiori to air navigation, the planner must con- tact the airport services section of the FAA and seek advice. In order to determine whether an object is an obstruction to naviga- ble airspace, several imaginary surfaces are established with relation to the airport and to each runway. The size of the imaginary surfaces depends upon the type of approach planned for that runway: visual, nonprecision instrument, and precision instrument. tvortheast Orient 747parked nose -in at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. The principal imaginary surfaces defined in FAR Part 77 are shown in Fig. 5-17: I A surface longitudinally centered on a runway is called a pri- mary surface. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway, but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. 2 A borizontal surface is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is con- structed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. 3 The conical surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 horizontal to I vertical for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. 4 A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface is called the approacb surface. Honzonial surface Approach surface Transitional surface 7:1 200 feet beyond paved surface Conical surface 20.1 / 5-17. Imaginary surfaces. reoera�avauon Atlm�rvsuetlan 5 The transitional surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline ex- tended at a slope of 7-to-1 from the sides of the primary sur- face and from the sides of the approach surfaces. MtPun myuur ana Tana use plans The dimensions of the imaginary surfaces are shown in Table 5-1. FAR Part 77 specifies dimensions for each category of runway coded A, B, C, and D. Land use plan The airport land use plan shows on -airport land uses as developed by the airport sponsor under the master plan effort and off -airport land uses as developed by surrounding communities. The work of airport, city, regional, and state planners must be carefully coordi- nated. The configuration of airfield runways, taxiways, and ap- proach zones established in an airport layout plan provides the basis for development of the land use plan for areas on and adjacent to the airport. The land use plan for the airport and its environment in turn is an integral part of an area -wide comprehensive planning pro- gram. The location, size, and configuration of the airport needs to be coordinated with patterns of residential and other major land uses in the area, as well as with other transportation facilities and public services. Within the comprehensive planning framework, airport planning, policies, and programs must be coordinated with the ob- jectives, policies, and programs for the area that the master plan air- port is to serve. Land uses on the airport The amount of acreage within the airport's boundaries will have a major impact on the types of land uses to be found on the airport. For airports with limited acreage, most land uses will be aviation -ori- ented. Large airports with a great deal of land in excess of what is needed for aeronautical purposes might be used for other uses. For example, many airports lease land to industrial users, particularly those who use business aircraft or whose personnel travel extensively by. air carrier or charter. In many cases, taxiway access is provided directly to the company's facility. In some instances, railroad trades serving the company's area, company parking lots, or low-level ware- housing can be located directly under runway approaches (but free of dear zones). Companies that might produce electronic distur- bances that would interfere with aircraft navigation or communica- tions equipment or cause visibility problems due to smoke are not compatible airport tenants. Some commercial activities are suitable for locating within the airport's boundaries. Recreational uses such as golf courses and picnicking ar- M q O O O N UO O O o y 0 0 o O C O A O O M p r s 0000 U i+ a q U v\o CnO m o «i o 0 z o 0 0 0 C Vo G O O N Vl N V1 It o C)O C)(� CD N O V N O O O O N R C (V O N O O N V ti V1 E. a U N 6 F 8 c� r 0 r. C) C w 0 0 O O C C 0 0 04.14 O m � 0 0 a m � a � O 0 o Ei 4 00 -•_� C•1 Lhl© 161 --- •-y-... ...... ....... we p,aun Land use plan 163 nccDungaryacuutes at GreaterPittsbutgh International Airport. Fretl pin, A 1l9henY Cmmty Pho .Phy eas are quite suitable for airport land uses and might in effect serve as good buffer areas. Certain agricultural uses are appropriate for airport lands, but grain fields that attract birds are avoided. Although lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams might be appropriate for inclusion within the airport's boundaries, especially from the standpoints of noise or flood control, care is normally taken to avoid those water bodies that have in the past attracted large numbers of waterfowl. Dumps and landfills that might attract birds are also avoided. Land uses around the airport The noise problem is the biggest objection voiced by people in areas near the airport. The responsibility for developing land uses around the airport so as to minimize the impact of noise and other environmental problems lies with the local governmental bodies. The more political entities involved, the more complicated the coor- dination process becomes. In the past, the most common approach to controlling land uses around the airport was zoning. Airports and their surrounding areas become involved in two types of zoning. The first type of zoning is height and hazard zoning, which protects the airport and its approaches from obstructions to aviation while restricting certain el- ements of community growth. FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navi- gable Airspace, is the basis for height and hazard zoning. A symmetrical view of Charlotte/Douglas international Airport showing the airport's twin parking decks, terminal building, and four concourses. The 150 foot FAA control tower is in the foreground and a 15 foot sculpture of Queen Charlotte, whom the city was named after, is centered between the twin parking checks. Airport layout and land use plans Ab Key terms 165 The second type of zoning is land use zoning. This type of zoning has several shortcomings. First, it is not retroactive and does not affect preexisting uses that might conflict with airport operations. Secondly, jurisdictions with zoning powers (usually cities, towns, or counties) might not take effective zoning action. This is partly because the airport might affect several jurisdictions and coordi- nation of zoning is difficult. Or the airport might be located in a rural area where the county lacks zoning powers and the spon- soring city might not be able to zone outside its political bound- aries. Another problem is that the interest of the community is not always consistent with the needs and interests of the aviation in- dustry. The locality might want more tax base, population growth, and rising land values, all of which are not often consistent with the need to preserve the land around the airport for other than residential uses. Another approach to land use planning around the airport is subdi- vision regulations. Provisions can be written into the regulations pro- hibiting residential construction in intense noise exposure areas. These areas can be determined by acoustical studies Prior to devel- opment. Insulation requirements can be made a part of the local budding codes, without which the building permits cannot be issued. Finally, another alternative in controlling land use around the airport is the relocation of residences and other incompatible uses. Often urban renewal funds are used for this purpose. Key terms airport layout plan airport layout plan drawing airport layout location map vicinity map basic data table wind rose airside facilities (aeronautical surfaces) landside facilities single runway parallel runways open-V runways intersecting runways visual runway nonprecision instrument runway precision instrument runway displaced threshold relocated threshold instrument landing system (ILS) localizer beacon glideslope transmitter outer marker middle marker decision height microwave landing system (MLS) global positioning system (GPS) exit and entrance taxiways parallel taxiways holding areas holding bays (aprons) nose -in, angled nose -in, angled nose -out, and parallel parking approach and clear zone layout FAR Part 77 primary surface horizontal surface conical surface approach surface transitional surfaces land use plan height and hazard zoning land use zoning subdivision regulations E t bb Airport layout and land use plans Suggested readings roi Review questions DOT/FAA advisory circulars 1 What is an airport layout plan drawing? Describe the informa- 70/7460-1H 7on116o-m Obstruction Marking and Lighting Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects That tion included in the airport layout section of the drawing, May Affect the Navigable Airspace What other items are included in the drawing? 150/5020-1 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airpor'Cs 2 Define airside facilities. Describe the four basic runway con- 150/5070-3 Planning the Airport Industrial Park figurations. 150/5070-6A Airport Master Plans • What is the FAA's requirement with regard to runway orien- 150/5300-13 Airport Design Standards tation and the prevailing wind? Is it the same for utility and 150/5320-513 Airport Drainage nonutility airports? 150/5050-2 Compatible Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of • Describe the following runway classifications: visual, non- Airports precision instrument, and precision instrument. What is 150/5100-5 Land Acquisition in the Federal -Aid Airport Program meant by a displaced threshold? A relocated threshold? 150/5190-3 Model Airport Zoning Ordinance • Describe the lighting system for a precision instrument runway. 150/5340-1G 150/5340-4C Standards for Airport Markings Installation Details for Runway Centerline Touch- 3 How does the ILS work? t down Zone Lighting Systems 150/5340-14B Economy Approach Lighting Aids • What is the microwave landing system (MLS)? The global 150/5340-513 Segmented Circle Airport Marker System positioning system (GPS)? n 150/5340-17B Standby Power for Non -FAA Airport Lighting • Describe the basic principles in laying out taxiways. Distin- s Systems guish between holding areas and holding bays. G 150/5340-18C Standards for Airport Sign Systems • What are the four basic aircraft parking positions? Which is { 150/5340-19 Taxiway Centerline Lighting System the most popular at major airports? Why? 150/5340-21 Airport Miscellaneous Lighting Visual Aids • What is the airport layout plan report? 150/5340-24 Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting System 4 What is the approach and clear zone layouL2 Describe the 150/5340-26 150/5345-28D Maintenance of Airport Visual Aid Facilities Precision Approach Path Indicator "imaginary surfaces" described in FAR Part 77. What is a util- a 150/5345 39B FAA Specification L-853, Runway and Taxiway Cen- ity runway? terline Retroreflective Markers 5 What nonaviation land uses would be compatible with avia- tion activities within the airport boundary? Which would not? 150/5345-46A Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures • What is the biggest problem when residential communities 150/5345-50 Specification for Portable Runway Lights are built adjacent to the airport? Discuss some possible so- 150/5370-10A Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports lutions to this problem. 150/5370-2C Operational Safety on Airports During Construction • Which type of businesses might be appropriate airport neighbors? A Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS) Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace Suggested readings Part 153 Acquisition of U.S. Land for Public Airports Dogand Riggs. The Airport Business New York: Roudedge, Chapman Part 157 Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports and Hall, Inc., 1992. Horonjeff, Robert, and Francis McKelvey. Planning and Design of Airports, 4th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. I 50 .-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 4, 2001 TO: Norma Glover, Dennis O'Neil, Gary Proctor FROM: Robert Burnham RE: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee I am faxing you a copy of the Agenda for the April 5, 2001 meeting that is scheduled to begin at 1:30 in the City Manager's office. I am also faxing a memo from me regarding the McNally Temple proposal and a list of some of the JWA Settlement Agreement messages that the committee may want to discuss. A copy of the proposed request for legal opinion will be faxed later this afternoon. Please call if you have questions. Robert Burnham v AGENDA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee APRIL 5, 2001 MEETING CITY MANAGERS OFFICE at 1:30 p.m. 1. Presentation�by McNally Temple 2. Website presentation by Patrick Alford 3. Report from negotiation team on their third meeting with the Airport Director and Special Counsel. 4. Discussion of proposed request for legal opinion 6. Discussion of strategy to involve or inform other cities and interest P� groups. 01- Cm. A, z—' T�L a� �• 6. Discussion of strategy, issues and messages related to the Settlement Agreement extension. 7. Member Comments. 8. Staff Comments. 9. Next Meeting Date CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorn TO: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Comm. FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Public Relations Program Key Messages Extension EIR DATE: March 13, 2001 Clem and I have briefly reviewed the proposed public relations program from McNally Temple and we have some suggestions relative to some of the proposed messages. Our two primary concerns can be summarized as follows: EMPHASIS ON RESTRICTIONS The City should avoid focusing on the flight and passenger "restrictions" in the agreement and, instead, focus on the facility constraints (that were the primary goal of the agreement). While this is a more difficult message to communicate, the emphasis on flight, passenger and/or aircraft restrictions tends to inflame air carriers and the FAA. The focus on the impact of the restrictions also could force us to increase the capacity of JWA when we evaluate the "no project' alternative. 2. CURFEW AND AIRCRAFT TYPE, We should be very careful in terms of how we discuss — if at all — the curfew and restrictions on the "type" of aircraft. The FAA has, in the past, considered the JWA curfew to be a safety issue based on a crash in Detroit that was allegedly caused by pilots trying to hurry up so they beat the 11:00 p.m. arrival curfew at JWA. As you know, under ANCA, a grandfathered agreement can be amended so long as there is no impact on safe . The agreement does not contain express restrictions on the type of aircraft and that is,precisely the type of restriction that ANCA was designed to eliminate. Burnham OCX and the JWA Settlement Agreement Extension TOP REASONS TO PURSUE THE EXTENSION 1. EXTENSION PROVES THAT THE BOARD WILL DO EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM AIRPORT NOISE. 2. EXTENSION PROVES THE BOARD WILL LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISES - YOU CAN TRUST THE BOARD TO DO THE RIGHT THING OVER THE LONG HAUL. 3. SUPPORT OF EXTENSION WILL BE POPULAR IN DISTRICTS 1, 2 AND 4 AND COULD BE A BIG PLUS IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION - ESPECIALLY IF ETRPA RUNS AN ANTI -AIRPORT CANDIDATE -WHO WILL THEN BE ON THE DEFENSIVE REGARDING EXPANSION OF JWA. 4. JWA EXTENSION PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM WILL FOCUS ON ONE OF THE BIGGEST SUCCESSES OF THE BOARD - JWA - INCREASING VOTER APPROVAL RATING. 6. THE EXTENSION PUTS AIRPORT DEMAND AND JWA CAPACITY ISSUES IN PLAY AND IN A WAY THAT SHOULD ALLOW EXTENSIVE MEDIA/MAIL ON THESE TOPICS. 6. ETRPA OPPOSITION - EXPRESSED IN RESPONSES TO EIR AND OTHER ANTI -EXTENSION EFFORTS WILL CREATE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK ETRPA BY MAIL AND MEDIA IN THE CORRIDOR AND ELSEWHERE ON FAIRNESS, CREDIBILITY. 7. EXTENSION GIVES US A VEHICLE TO FOCUS CORRIDOR RESIDENTS AND OTHERS ON THE AIRPORT ISSUE AND A BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING A RELATIONSHIP. 8. EXTENSION PROVIDES VEHICLE FOR NOISE MITIGATION FOR OCX. 9. -EXTENSION IS CONSISTENT WITH EIR 673 AND A TWO (2) AIRPORT SYSTEM CONCEPT. 10. EXTENSION -AND REALLY A COMMITMENT NOT TO ADD GATES - FORECLOSES THE ARGUMENT THAT JWA IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE OUR NEEDS. DE FOR 0 711 Alt - Feet NEW CHART ELIMINATES RESTRICTIONS OVER IRVINE 10 February, 2001 Subject: Proposed Plan to Utilize Uncontrolled Airspace East of John Wayne Airport Background When the El Toro MCAS was an active base, there was an active tower and a Class "C" controlled airspace surrounding the base. This was still shown on the 66' edition of the Los Angeles Sectional Aeronautical Chart dated 30 December 1999. (also on the VFR Terminal Area Chart for Los Angeles, 40" edition dated 30 December 1999) The FAA then eliminated the Class "C" controlled airspace around El Toro as shown on the 68" edition of the Los Angeles Sectional Aeronautical Chart dated 28 December 2000. (also on the VFR Terminal Area Chart for Los Angeles, 42" edition dated 28 December 2000). Thus we now have a wide open uncontrolled airspace east of John Wayne Airport. Recommendation Today all JWA approaches, except during Santa Ana wind conditions, are made from the north over Tustin and from the west over Costa Mesa and Santa Ana to runway 19R. Since the airspace east of JWA is now wide open, it is being recommended that flights from the east and southeast be vectored into JWA, in addition to the approaches from the north and west. During Santa Ana wind conditions this flight path can be utilized for departures to the east. This represents a reasonable and safe distribution of the approaches to JWA from an environmental justice standpoint, since Irvine residents are the largest Orange County users of JWA. This information is, based on an Air Transportation User Survey dated December 2000. In fact the combined residents of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana and Tustin, who use JWA, are fewer than the residents from Irvine alone.(ref: Table 3-2b of noted report) When El Toro becomes a commercial airport, in approximately five years, the FAA can then reinstate the Class "C" controlled airspace, eliminate the approaches into JWA from the east, and utilize the El Toro airspace for the departures to the east and north and arrivals from the south as currently planned in EIR 537. Tnm Kiniinhtnn -- Procidont r) (' Airnnrt Wnrkinn (:rnim About AWG Airport Working Group (AWG) of Orange County, Inc. was founded in 1982 as a not -for -profit corporation 501 C3 (donations are tax deductible) by residents in the John Wayne Airport flight path seeldng long term solutions to Orange County's growing Aviation AWG 1048 Irvine Ave., PMB 467 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)- 224-5504 president(weltoronow.ore Learn more on our web site: http://eltoronow.org i � 1.�111iti�lc'> Statute Miles 0 r. 2 Exhibit 4-9 John Wavne Airport 1998 Contours ( N EL 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB � I E . c � S j •. a 7uu RResidatial es _ Statute Miles Exhibit 5.2-4 0- John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60, 65, and 70 dB WAS EL R MASTER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM • rtts�� � /.:. VIA City Managers and Secretaries - Orange County Cities ANAHEIM Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Janice Share, Seery to CM James D. Ruth 562/431-3538 x201 STANTON 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., #733 Patti Fogarty, Exec Asst FAX: 562/493-1255 Terry S. Matz Anaheim, CA 92803 714/536-5575 FAX: 714/536.5233 7800 Katella Avenue MISSION VIEJO Stanton, CA 90680 Kelly Alvarez, Exec Assl IRVINE Dan Joseph 714/765-5165 FAX: 714/765.5164 Allison Hart 25909 Pala, Suite 150 Brenda Green, City Clerk/ Seery to P. 0. Box 19575 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 CM DREA Irvine, CA 92623-9575 714/379-9222 x240 Tim O'Donnell Kathy Rios, Exec Asst FAX:714/890.1443 One Civic Center Circle Caro( Lazar, Exec Coord 949/470.3051 FAX: 949/859-1386 Brea, CA 92821 949/724.6246 FAX: 949/724-6045 TUSTIN NEWPORT BEACH William A. Huston Kerry Shaman, Sr Exec Asst to CM LA HABRA Homer Bludau 300 Centennial Way 7141990-7711 FAX: 7141990.2258 Thomas G. Manic 3300 Newport Boulevard Tustin, CA 92780 P. 0. Box 337 Newport Beach, CA 92663 BUENA PARK La Habra, CA 90633-0337 Patty Estrella, Exec Coord Greg Dcaubien Kathy Forde, Secty to CM 714/573-3012 FAX: 714/838-1602 6650 Beach Boulevard Anja Pavlak (M-W-F), Exec Asst. 949/644-3000 FAX: 949/644-3020 Buena Park, CA 90602 Down Lakin (T-Th-F), Exec Asst VILLA PARK 562/905-9701 FAX: 562/905-9781 ORANGE Fred W. Maley Diane Tnijillo, Exec Secty David Rudat 17855 Santiago Boulevard 714/562-3550 FAX: 714/562.3559 LA PALMA 300 E. Chapman Avenue Villa Park, CA 92861 Eve Wheeler, Adm.Secty 714/562- Leonard Wood Orange, CA 92866 3553 7822 Walker Marcia DeLeon, Adm Asst La Palma, CA 90623 Pat Myers, Exec Seery 714/998-1500 FAX: 714/998-1508 COSTA MESA 714/744-2202 FAX: 714/744-SI47 Allan Roeder Money Jalonio, Exec Asst WESTMINSTER P. 0. Box 1200 714/690-3333 FAX: 714/523-2141 PLACENTIA Don Vestal Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Robert D'Amato 8200 Westminster Avenue LAGUNA BEACH 401 E. Chapman Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Donna R. Fagdt, Seery to CM Kenneth Frank Placentia, CA 92870 Janice Foley, Exec Coord 714/754.5328 FAX. 714/754-5330 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Jande Delos Santos, Adm Seery 7141898-3311 x402 CYPRESS 714/993-8117 FAX: 714/961-0283 FAX: 714/373-4684 Pat Importuna 5275 Orange Avenue Carol Bright, Seery to CM 9491497-0704 FAX: 949/497-0771 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA YORBA LINDA Cypress, CA 90630 William Talley Terrence Belanger LAGUNA HILLS 30211 Avenida de las Banderas 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Anne Stadlnrnn, Exec Secty Bruce Charming Suite 101 P. O. Box 87014 714/229.6688 FAX, 714/229.6682 25201 Pasco de Alicia, #150 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Yorba Linda, CA 92886.8714 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Laguna DANA POINT Roach, Office Manager Helene Kamineter, Adm Secty (Vacant) Jeanne Hulse, Adm Coord 9491635-1814 FAX:949/635-1840 714/961-7110 FAX:714/993.7530 33282 Golden Lantem #203 949/707-2610 FAX: 949/707-2614 SAN CLEMENTE OCn LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES Dana Point, CA 92629 LAGUNA NIGUEL Mike W. Parness Janet M. Huston, Executive Director Kathy Ward, Exec Secty Timothy J. Casey 100 Avenida Presidia 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 214 949/248.3513 FAX: 949/248-9920 27801 La Paz Road San Clemente, CA 92672 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Laguna Niguel, CA 92656 E-mail: ihuston(),occities.org FOUNTAIN VALLEY Joann Fnudt, Exec Secty to CM Raymond H. Kromer Pauline Colvin, Exec Seery 949/361-8322 FAX: 949/361-8283 Joan Adair, Div Secty 10200 Slater Avenue 94913624300 FAX: 949/3624340 714/972-0077 FAX: 714/972-1816 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO E-mail: jadatr@occtties.org LAGUNA WOODS George Scarborough Mary Bowron, Adm Secty Leslie Keane 32400 Pasco Adelanto COUNTY OF ORANGE 71415934410 FAX: 714/5934494 24310 Moulton Parkway, Suite K San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Michael Schumacher, CEO Laguna Woods, CA 92653 10 Civic Center Plaza, 30 Floor FULLERTON Diane Harrison, Exec Secty Santa Ana, CA 92701 James L. Armstrong Rosalind Fox, Arbinin Secty 949/493-1171 FAX: 949/493-1053 E-mail: 303 W. Commonwealth 949/452-0600 FAX: 949/457-8160 michael.schumacher@ocgov.com Fullerton, CA 92832 SANTA ANA LAKE FOREST David N. Ream Polly Morones, Exec Secty Debbie Ashworth, Exec Secty Robert C. Dunek 20 Civic Center Plaza (M31) 714/834.6201 FAX: 714/834-3018 714/738.6310 FAX: 714/738.6758 23161 Lake Center Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92701 E-mail: polly.morones@ocgov,com Lake Forest, CA 92630 GARDEN GROVE Angi Christensen, Secty to CM George L. Tindall Patti Feldner, Exec Secty 714/647-5231 FAX: 714/647-6954 11222 Acacia Parkway 949/461-3412 FAX: 949/461-3510 Garden Grove, CA 92840 SEAL. BEACH John B. Bahorski Aurie Duran, Adm Secty LOS ALAMITOS 211 Eighth Street 7141741-5100 FAX: 714/741-5044 Robert C. Dominguez Seal Beach, CA 90740 3191 Katella Avenue [11INTINGTON BEACH Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Jackie Guidry, Seery to C.M. Ray Sliver Ginger Bennington, Adm Asst 2000 Main Street 562/431-2527 FAX: 5621493-9857 ReWsetl: 03/12R001 John Wayne Airport Flight Corridor Contact List Title Phone Fax E-Mail ANAHEIM WILLSANAHEIM' (714) 765-5100 (714) 765-5164 Tom Daly Mayor (714) 765-5247 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net Shirley McCracken Councilmember (714) 281-3171 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net Lucille Kring Councilmember (714) 636-4424 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net Frank Feldhaus Councilmember (714) 254-5116 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net Tom Tait Councilmember (714) 560-8200 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net Jim Ruth City Manager (714) 765-5247 (714) 765-5164 sray@anaheim.net COSTA MESA (714) 7545285 (714) 7545330 Libby Cowan Mayor (714) 754-5285 (714) 754-5330 libbycowan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us Chris Steel Councilmember (714) 548-8663 (714) 754-5330 csteelicDci.costa-mesa.ca.us Linda Dixon Councilmember (714) 556-6290 (714) 754-5330 IwdixonO.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us Karen Robinson Councilmember (714) 650-8246 (714) 754-5330 Gary Monahan Councilmember (949) 645-4539 (714) 754-5330 amonahan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us Allen Roeder City Manager (714) 754-5327 (714) 754-5330 aroeder(&.gj osta-mesa.ca.us IdEiNTiCait3l#))SkRti (714) 5365553 (714) 5365233 Pam Julien Mayor (714) 960-6380 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Dave Garofalo Councilmember (714) 536-9990 (714) 536-52331 Please Fax Shirley Dettloff Councilmember (714) 847-8371 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Ralph Bauer Councilmember (714) 846-3927 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Peter Green Councilmember (714) 897-2039 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Debbie Cook Councilmember (714) 841-4484 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Connie Boardman Councilmember (714) 841-0057 (714) 536-5233 Please Fax Ray Silver City Administrator (714) 536-5576 (714) 536-5233 silverr@surfcdy-hb.org I[t NE (949) 724-6000 (949) 724-6045 citycouncil@ci.irvine.ca.us Larry Agran Mayor (949) 786-3976 (949) 724-6045 Greg Smith Councilmember (949) 559-1563 (949) 724-6045 gsmith(caci.irvine.ca.us Michael Ward lCouncilmember 1 (949) 552-4501 (949) 724-6045 mwardOci.irvine.ca.us Chris Mears Mayor Pro Tern (949) 854-4842 (949) 724-6045 cmears _ ci.irvine.ca.us Beth Krom Councilmember (949) 733-1509 (949) 724-6045 bkrom@ci.irvine.ca.us Allison Hart City Manager (949) 724-6246 (949) 724-6045 ahart@ci.irvine.ca.us Pt!KWORT BIBJ 014 (949) 644-3005 Gary Adams Mayor (949) 644-5506 (949) 263-1225 gary.adams0parsons.com Tod Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tem (949) 673-8017 (949) 721-9008 tridgeway@citv.newr)ort-beach.ca.us Norma Glover' Councilmember (949) 548-3212 (949) 650-1713 nglover@city.newport-beach.ca.us Dennis O'Neil Councilmember (949) 798-0734 (949) 798-0511 doneil[rDhewittmcguire.com Steve Bromberg Councilmember (949) 673-6407 (949) 644-1853 dandee@earthlink.net Gary Proctor Councilmember (714) 547-5853 (714) 547-4656 gproctor juveniledefenders.com John Heffernan Councilmember (949) 640-4300 (949) 721-1140 ihff&LOIcom Homer Bludau City Manager (949) 644-3000 (949) 644-3020 hbludau@city.newport-beach.ca.us E7tii41E (714) 744-2211 (714) 7445147 Mark Murphy Mayor (714) 758-5724 (714) 744-5147 dhomsbvOcftyoforance.ora Mike Alvarez Councilmember (714) 283-4514 (714) 744-5147 dhomsby( .cityoforange.orq Dan Slater Councilmember (714) 994-0543 (714) 744-5147 dhomsby@cftvoforange.orq Joanne Coontz Councilmember (714) 637-8156 (714) 744-5147 dhomsby@cftyoforanae.org David Rudat City Manager (714) 744-2222 (714) 744-5147 drudat@cityoforanae.oro F#..i; P",J,.t, (714) 993-8117 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Chris Lowe Mayor (714) 993-1250 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Judy Dickinson Councilmember (714) 524-6951 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Scott Brady Councilmember (714) 993-2671 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Norman Exkenrode Councilmember (714) 528-1662 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Constance Underhill Councilmember (714) 993-4866 (714) 961-0283 administration@placentia.org Robert D'Amato City Manager (714) 993-8117 (714) 961-0283 administrationOwlacentia.ora , N A ANA (714) 647-5400 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Miguel Pulido Mayor (714) 647-5400 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Alberta Christy Councilmember (714) 545-0357 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Claudia Alvarez Councilmember (714) 953-6141 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Patricia McGuigan Councilmember (714) 839-1216 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Brett Franklin Councilmember (714) 835-4937 (714) 647-6954 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Lisa Bist Councilmember (714) 436-4184 (714) 647-69541 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Jose Solorio lCouncilmember 1 (714) 549-6780 (714) 647-69541 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us David N. Ream I City Manager 1 (714) 647-5200 (714) 647-69541 achristensen@ci.santa-ana.ca.us ICAS EL TORC DRdNGE COUNTY . ,�. AWEINI • - - .NNVI •1- u,,,.,i.•w yrjreilx ORANGE V q" T.. f ;` - ♦•�` lltll�l No • TUSTIN r �' SANTA ANA' COSTA MES I a _� _ i I i t t IRVINE r.ww„ NEVIPORT t LAKE FORPBT 1112 BEACH' MISSION VIEJO 'a ,_ ,Fi •' � Ai tpi it II � ' oS" LAGUNA HILLS { � a•♦ ��. ert/ 1 •f ©` p a I e LAGUNA ✓� REACH ,+ LAGUNA NIGUEL E CAPIGTRANO ki OANA POINT 'L '" A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT AND - AIRPORT WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC MOU REGARDING AMENDMENT OF JWA EXTENSION AGREEMENT RECITALS A. The City of Newport Beach (City) and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. (AWG) have a long standing alliance concerning limiting the size and number of operations at JWA and supporting development of a civilian airport facility at El Toro. B. The City and AWG desire to continue this alliance and to create a division of labor so as to more effectively pursue the joint goals of limiting JWA and converting El Toro into a civilian airport. C. To this end, the City and AWG agree, as set forth in detail below, that the City will take the lead in pursuing an extension of the JWA agreement currently in effect and AWG will support the extension sought by the City so long as it conforms to the terms set forth in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). NOW, THEREFORE, for good consideration given and received, the City and AWG agree as follows: 1. The City will pursue an extension of the current JWA Settlement Agreement approved by the Federal Court under the -following terms and conditions: a. The term of the extension shall be 10 years or more from the current date of expiration (December 31, 2005). b. The two existing commuter gates at either end of the JWA terminal may be used for commercial air carrier service (including the installation of loading bridges) as follows: (i) one gate may be used for commercial air carrier service upon receipt of all necessary approvals by the City and the County of Orange for the extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement; (ii) the other such gate may be used for commercial air carrier service as of the current expiration date (December 31, 2005). C. The MAPCAP limit in the current JWA Settlement Agreement may be modified to a seat capacity allocation limit that reflects the facility constraints (SEATCAP) so long as the number of average daily departures of all classes of commercial jet aircraft does not increase by more than 3% during the first full plan year following approval by the City and County and no more than 1 % in any subsequentplan year. d.. The current number of noise regulated departures does not increase but there is an 25% increase in Class'A average daily departures (ADD) during the first full plan year following City and County approval and a complete conversion of Class AA ADD to Class A ADD by December 31, 2010. e. The City enters into a cooperative agreement with the County regarding the preparation of an EIR on the extension project pursuant to which the County is nominally the lead agency but the City will control preparation of the EIR and Clem Shute will manage the CEQA process. f. The City and AWG shall hold regular coordination meetings, no less than once per month, so that AWG will be apprised of the status of the City's efforts and can contribute its suggestions for accomplishing an extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement. 2. So long as the extension pursued by the City does not vary substantially from the terms and conditions set forth in Section 1 above, AWG will support the extension effort including providing public support as appropriate. AWG will allow the City to conduct the extension process without direct AWG involvement. Finally AWG will agree that it shall no longer be a party to the Settlement Agreement as of December 31, 2005 or the modification of the Settlement Agreement to implement an airport system accompanied by the actual initiation of air cargo or air carrier service at the second airport. 3. The City will make every effort, in good faith, to have the EIR certified and secure Orange County approval for the extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement prior to the March 2002 election where the parties contemplate that anti -El Toro airport forces will have an initiative on the ballot seeking to terminate pursuit of conversion of El Toro to a civilian airport facility. 4. The City's public statement and actions regarding the extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement will not interfere with the effort to convert El Toro to a civilian airport facility. The City's focus in this regard will be: a. To point out that increases in facilities or operations at JWA will have a substantial negative impact on the quality of life of Newport Beach residents who are already bearing more than their fair share of the burden of aircraft pollution. b. To point out that JWA has insufficient space to provide substantial additional air transportation service and that the cost of providing additional facilities at JWA is large in comparison to providing such service at El Toro. c. To point out that Orange County's willingness to limit JWA illustrates that the County has the legal ability and will to limit the size of airport facilities in the County. 5. The City will continue its full support for conversion of El Toro to a civilian airport facility. In this regard, the City has already provided substantial funding to AWG and Citizens for Jobs and the Economy to support this effort. The City will coordinate with AWG on necessary steps to cause Orange County to complete EIR 573 and adopt an Airport Master Plan. The City will likewise coordinate with AWG on necessary steps to cause the Department of the Navy and the FAA to complete the NEPA process, transfer the property to Orange County and approve civilian airport use. 6. The parties to this MOU agree that the respective promises made herein are important and material to the willingness of each party to enter into the MOU and that the breach of such promises by either party can not be satisfied except by the equitable remedy of specific performance. To this end, the parties agree that legal action to enforce this MOU may be pursued in the United States District Court for the Central District in [add case name and number for Hatter case] [we may not want to go this far]. In any such action, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs and attorneys fees. 7. [boiler plate provision such as severability, no change without written amendment, notices to parties, no third party beneficiaries, each party has authority to sign, etc.???) WHEREFORE, the City and AWG approve this MOU as indicated by their signatures below. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 Mayor March 2001 AIRPORT WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. 0 President C. PANEWPBIMAWECS002.WPD March 2001 II Iv II J 8.6 ALTERNATIVE F: JWA — SHORT- TO LIMITED LONG -HAUL WITH LIMITED GENERAL AVIATION; NO AVIATION REUSE AT FORMER MCAS EL TORO This section presents the potential impacts of Alternative F as measured against the existing setting, as well as a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project at build out. In those instances in which the comparison of the alternative to the Proposed Project is materially affected by the phasing of the project, i.e., in those instances in which the impacts of the Proposed Project during the phasing years are materially different from those impacts at year 2020, a comparison of the alternative's impacts to those of the Proposed Project for the applicable phasing year is also provided. This alternative was selected for analysis because it has the potential to avoid significant unavoidable aircraft noise and aircraft air quality emission impacts at the El Toro site while still feasibly attaining some of the objectives of the Proposed Project. 8.6.1 Aviation Uses Under Alternative F, JWA would continue to provide short- and medium -haul domestic passenger service (with limited long -haul service), and there would be no aviation reuse at MCAS El Toro. JWA would also provide all -cargo service to short-, medium-, and limited long -haul destinations. JWA would not be constrained by existing limits on passengers or aircraft operations under this alternative. The airport would accommodate as much passenger demand as possible, estimated to be approximately 14 MAP in 2020, by expanding airport facilities to the extent possible within the existing airport property limits, approximately four percent (0.6 MAP) of which would be passengers with connecting flights. JWA is also forecast to annually handle approximately 180 thousand tons of domestic cargo. Alternative F would include 29 jet aircraft gates and 8 commuter aircraft gates, 19 Remain Overnight (RON) aircraft parking spaces, 13,820 vehicle parking spaces, and approximately 1.14 million square feet of terminal area. There would be minimal general aviation service at JWA, which would allow the airport to accommodate expanded commercial service. The general aviation runway would be closed. The main runway would be extended from 5,700 feet to 6,800 feet. General aviation activity would be displaced to private or municipal airports in Orange County or other counties. Figure 8-6 depicts Alternative F. ' The environmental analysis of this alternative focuses on the impacts of the alternative at JWA. This alternative does not propose or include any physical changes at the El Toro site. ! However, if Alternative F were selected and implemented, it necessarily would result in the ! adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site, possibly one similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. To understand the full impacts of Alternative F along with the 4 County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8-125 ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative, for example, the reader should review the impacts of both alternatives as addressed in this section. 8.6.2 Nonaviation Revenue Support Uses Alternative F does not propose nonaviation uses at JWA and does not include any physical changes at the El Toro site. However, approval of Alternative F would lead to the adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site. 8.6.3 Attainment of Project Objectives This alternative will not meet the general project objectives for reuse of MCAS El Toro. Alternative F will also not meet the general aviation, existing land use restrictions, and General Plan implementation objectives. It will have a major adverse impact on general aviation as the more than 500 general aviation aircraft now at JWA would have to be relocated. Alternative F also does not encourage growth of service opportunities, and it does not implement the two airport system. This alternative will partially further the other aviation related objectives. 8.6.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative F 8.6.4.1 Land Use This alternative would have no land use impacts at the El Toro site since all development would occur at JWA. However, this alternative would have greater adverse land use impacts at JWA than the Proposed Project. Based on this analysis, the alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the project. JWA under Alternative F will serve almost twice as many commercial air passengers as are currently served at JWA. This will require a runway extension and facilities expansion. The JWA site is surrounded by business parks, light industrial uses, and airport serving businesses, which are compatible with intensified airport use at JWA, therefore; the intensification of on -site land uses associated with Alternative F will not have significant impact on adjacent off -site land uses. However, as a result of a larger 65 CNEL noise contour, this alternative will have a significant effect on existing residential uses compared to no significant effect under the Proposed Project (see Section 8.4.4.4). 8.6.4.2 General Plan Consistency -k This alternative would impact General Plan consistency issues at the El Toro site, although it would not raise General Plan issues with respect to JWA. Amendments to the County Noise Element and AELUP are not required for JWA because the new noise contours related to the increase in the aviation activity at JWA would be within the 1985 JWA Master Plan \ Alternatives County of Orange EIR No. 573 8426 contours. Although this alternative avoids aviation uses at the El Toro site, a nonaviation use at El Toro would require a County General Plan Amendment to replace Measure A policies designating the El Toro site for commercial airport development and amendments to reflect the absence of aviation noise and associated land use restrictions. Under the Proposed Project, the Land Use, Noise, Public Services and Facilities, and Safety elements of the General Plan are proposed to be amended. 8.6.4.3 Transportation and Circulation This alternative would have greater adverse traffic impacts at JWA than the Proposed Project. Additionally, since this alternative would meet less existing and future County aviation demand, the alternative would result in higher regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not avoid or lessen measurably the project impacts because JWA impacts would be increased and because the foreseeable development of the El Toro site with nonaviation uses would generate adverse impacts greater than the project due to higher regional VMTs. The AM and PM peak hour and ADT traffic generated by JWA with build out of Alternative F is summarized in Table 8.6-1. Refer to Section 11.0 in the Traffic Analysis Technical Report (Appendix D) for detailed information on the methodology applied to produce trip generation estimates for Alternative F. Table 8.6-1 Trip Generation Summary — Alternative F X-I'WA-A- AM �eak`Hour, 83,943 EisngPojeetcom 47,450 _ 2,524 1711 4,235 `pMPOeakHour 3,330 ut•:-., 3,312 Total-_JWA 6,642 l �� For the JWA site, no changes to the connections that currently provide access between JWA and the surrounding circulation system are envisioned under Alternative F. Primary access to the passenger terminal would be provided by the existing entryways from MacArthur Boulevard at the Michelson Drive and I-405 southbound ramp intersections and from SR-55 via the existing JWA direct connector ramps. The parking areas that replace the existing general aviation facilities in the southeast part of the airport would be accessed from Campus Drive via the existing Airport Way intersection. The parking areas that replace the existing general aviation facilities in the southwest part of the airport would be accessed via the existing general aviation entryway from Baker,Street east of Red Hill Avenue. Table 8.6-2 compares, in summary, the Alternative F highway impacts to the existing conditions and existing conditions plus Proposed Project. There is minimal comparison between the existing plus Proposed Project versus the Alternative F impacts due to the large differences between the scope of the project (two airports) and the alternative (one airport). County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8-127 Table 8.6-2 Summary Comparison of Traffic Impacts for Alternative F to Existing Conditions and Existing Conditions Plus Project Existing Conditions DeficientRighwayFacilities Existing"Coaditidns P.IusTfop6edProject1mpacts, Alternative FWithEzisting, Plus Committed.Facilities Location Location Location INTERSECTIONS IMPACTED INTERSECTION IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS Newport (NB) & Del Mar Bake & Portola Red Hill & Baker El Toro & SR-73 NB Ramps Sand Canyon & Trabuco SR-55 NB Frontage & Baker Campus & N. Bristol Bake & I-5/1 405 SB Ramps SR-55 NB Frontage & Paularino Jamboree (SB) & Walnut Bake & Rockfield Main & Sunflower i Jamboree & I-405 NB Ramps Jeffrey & Alton Campus/Irvine & South Bristol Jeffrey & I-405 NB Ramps Jeffrey & I-405 NB Ramps Campus & North Bristol Red Hill & MacArthur Jeffrey & I405 SB Ramps Jamboree & Michelson Irvine Center & Lake Forest Jeffrey & Walnut/I-5 SB MacArthur & Main Bake & Jeronimo Sand Canyon & I-5 NB Ramps MacArthur & Michelson ' El Toro & Avd Carlota Sand Canyon & I-5 SB Ramps Red Hill & MacArthur La Paz & Cabot/I-5 SB Irvine Center & Lake Forest Red Hill & Main Los Alisos & Muirlands Bake & Irvine/Trabuco Von Karman & Michelson Alicia & Jeronimo Bake & Toledo MacArthur & Campus Alicia & Muirlands Los Alisos & Muirlands La Paz & Muirlands/I-5 NB Alicia & Jeronimo IMPACTED FREEWAY RAMPS Red Hill & Edinger Newport & Old Irvine I-405 at MacArthur — NB off -ramp Red Hill & Sycamore Red Hill & Walnut IMPACTED ARTERIAL ROADS Laguna Canyon (I405 to SJHTC) ARTERIAL ROADWAYS Laguna Canyon (south of El Toro) Portola (Sand Canyon to Foothill Toll Road) Culver (Bryan to Trabuco) Laguna Canyon (I-405 to SR-73) Laguna Canyon (south of El Toro) IMPACTED FREEWAY RAMPS Culver (Bryan to Trabuco) I-5 at Culver — SB Off Michelson (Carson to Harvard) I-5 at Sand Canyon —NB On I-5 at Sand Canyon — SB Off FREEWAY RAMPS I-5 at Culver — SB off I405 at MacArthur — NB On I-405 at Jamboree — SB Off AM Ala W M M w However, Table 8.6-2 indicates that under Alternative F traffic impacts will occur in the vicinity of JWA, while under the Proposed Project impacts will result primarily in the El Toro vicinity (refer to Section 11.0 in Appendix D Traffic Analysis Technical Report for detailed summaries of the Alternative F traffic volumes and LOS, as well as comparisons between existing plus committed conditions with and without Alternative F). A comparison of the impacts of Alternative F to the Proposed Project during the phasing. years may also be made. As discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6.6 of this EIR, under the Proposed Project phasing years, four intersection locations and two arterial roadway segments would be significantly impacted under Phase 1 conditions (2005), five intersection locations and two arterial roadway segments would be significantly impacted under Phase 2 conditions (2010), and nine intersection locations and two arterial roadway segments would be significantly impacted under Phase 3 conditions (2015). In each case, however, the identified impacts will be mitigated to a level below significant during the applicable phasing year (see Section 4.3.7.2, Table 4.3-20). In evaluating traffic impacts under Alternative F, the reader should keep in mind that approval of this alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site such as the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan Alternative analyzed in Section 8.10. 8.6.4.4 Noise Compared to existing conditions, this alternative would have no aviation noise impacts at the El Toro site, but would have greater adverse noise impacts at JWA than existing operations and the Proposed Project. Alternative F would increase the 60 and 65 CNEL contours at JWA from the 1998 contours somewhat, but not to the extent where they exceed those of the 1985 Master Plan contours. The number of individual commercial aircraft events will also increase substantially under this alternative. This alternative assumes that these operations would all be accommodated during existing operations hours, and no increase in the number of nighttime operations is expected under this alternative at TWA. However, the substantial increase in the number of operations may be considered a significant impact of Alternative F independent of the CNEL computation, as it was for El Toro under the Proposed Project and various other alternatives. The number of affected residences inside the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours is greater under Alternative F than either existing conditions or the Proposed Project (Table 8.4-4). In conclusion, -this Alternative would avoid aircraft noise impacts at the El Toro site. Also see Figure 8-7, which depicts noise contours for Alternative F. Adoption of this alternative would probably lead to approval of a nonaviation land use plan for the El Toro site, such as the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. For analysis of the noise impacts of a nonaviation land use plan, refer to Section 8.3. County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8 129 8.6.4.5 Air Quality Alternative F would result in significant unavoidable construction impacts greater than undei the Proposed Project. This alternative would have local impacts similar to the Proposed Project and significant regional impacts greater than the Proposed Project under all development scenarios. Construction Under this alternative, there"would be a facility expansion and runway extension at JWA. Construction emissions would be greater than those of the Proposed Project at JWA. With respect to MCAS El Toro, this alternative may lead to the adoption of a nonaviation alternative similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative (Section 8.10). Construction emission impacts at MCAS El Toro under this scenario could be greater than those of the Proposed Project due to higher density or intensity land uses being proposed. Therefore, this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable construction emissions that would be greater than the Proposed Project under all development scenarios and would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the Proposed Project. Regional Air Quality Impacts 9 Under this alternative, total annual passenger and total annual aircraft LTO operations at JWA would be greater than those of the Proposed Project. Regional vehicle miles traveled for this alternative would be about 442,679,250, which is higher than existing conditions (1998) and the Proposed Project (2020). Alternative F direct air pollutant emissions associated with airport operations, including aircraft, GSE, energy consumption, and vehicular trips, are shown below in Table 8.6-3. Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts i This alternative would avoid impacts at the El Toro site but would increase impacts at the JWA site. Impacts would be reduced with the mitigation measures recommended for the project but are anticipated to remain significant after mitigation. Alternatives 8-130 County of Orange EIR No. 573 gt L.11 II Table 8.6-3 Year 2020 Alternative F — Project Direct Air Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Dav) Source: CH2M Hill and LSA Associates, Inc., 1999 I ROC emissions obtained by multiplying HC emissions reported by EDMS by a factor of 1.14. When compared to the direct air quality emissions associated with the Proposed Project (2020), Alternative F would have greater CO, NOX, and PM,o emissions at JWA but lower ROC emissions. Regional air pollutant emissions, including airport operations at other airports in the region and VMT required for air travel passengers to get to these airports, are shown in Table 8.6-4 for this alternative. The regional air quality impacts under this alternative would be significant and would be greater than under the Proposed Project (see Table 8.1-1). Local Air Quality Impacts Airport emissions dispersion was conducted for JWA for this project alternative. Table 8.6-4 shows that no local criteria pollutant hot spots from airport operations were found at JWA under this alternative. At intersections in the vicinity of the project sites, the CAL3QHC model was used to assess the CO concentrations for Alternative F. Tables 8.6-5 and 8.6-6 show that the 1-hour and 8- hour CO concentrations would be below the State and federal CO standards. No CO hot spots would occur from project related vehicular traffic trips under this alternative. County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8-131 Table 8.6-4 Regionwide Emissions Inventory Alternative F 2020 (Pounds/Day Unless Noted) Year 2020 •AlternafiveYF CO' _ axNOx_ ; 'ROC, PM10, Aircraft El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 1,944 3,625 194 Other Airports 1 190,181 88,389 18,708 400 Regional. 192,125 92,014 18,902 400 GSE El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 9,956 751 272 27 Regional 9,956 751 272 27 Nat Gas El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 53 304 3 10 Others 620 3,568 33 122 Regional 673 3,872 36 132 Fuel E1 Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA - 13 - Regional 13 Roads El Toro 0 0 0 0 JWA 20,920 5,569 2,120 • 1,516 Others 2,755,707 491,238 69,753 8,311 Regional 2,775,997 496,807 71,873 9,827 TOTAL (pounds/day) 2,978,751 593,444 91,096 10,386 Change from 2020 No 3,729 -1,284 183 -7 Project(pounds/day) SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 for Operation (pounds/day) Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. ` Emission sources included in the "Other Airports" category include aircraft, GSE, and roads/parking lots at other airports in the region. z Numbers in bold represent change from 2020 No Project level which exceeds SCAQMD operational thresholds. Alternatives 8-132 County of Orange EIR No. 573 r 0 X Ell 0 17 a w 9 0 I 0 Table 8.6-5 Year 2020 Alternative F Pollutant Concentrations - JWA (Worst Case Operations and Meteorology) Caseand.Receptor 'P.ollutant Concentrations-.(ppm) CO , NO2' 1=Hour 8-.Hour. AAM 1-Hour. '' : ;24 Honr '; Monte Vista High School <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0172 <0.029 <0.006 Newport Beach Golf Course <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0175 <0.029 <0.006 Santa Ana Country Club <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0175 <0.029 <0.006 Residential Area East of Campus Drive <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0182 <0.029 <0.006 Sheraton Newport Beach <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0205 <0.029 <0.006 County Superintendent of Schools <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0186 <0.029 <0.006 South Terminal 13.18 6.64 0.170 0.0388 0.036 0.007 Fire Station <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0256 <0.029 <0.006 North Terminal 11.28 6.14 <0.141 0.0332 0.030 <0.006 Executive Park <9.94 <5.46 0.155 0.0338 0.034 0.007 Sky Park <9.94 <5.46 <0.141 0.0184 <0.029 <0.006 Federal Standard 35 ppm 9.0 ppm N/A 0.0534 ppm N/A 0.14 ppm State Standard 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm N/A 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm Source: CH2M Hill and LSA Associates, Inc., 1999. NOTE: [1] Includes ambient 1-hour CO concentration of 7 ppm and 1-hour CO concentration reported by EDMS. [2] Includes ambient 8-hour CO concentration of 4.1 ppm and 8-hour CO concentration reported by EDMS. [3] Includes ambient I -hour NO2 concentration of 0.113 ppm and one -tenth of the 1-hour NOX concentration reported by EDMS. [4] Includes ambient AAM NOz concentration of 0.017 ppm and 75 percent of the annual NOX concentration reported by EDMS. [5] Includes ambient 1-hour SOZ concentration of 0.019 ppm and 1-hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS. [6] Includes ambient 24-hour SO, concentration of 0.003 ppm and 24-hour SOX concentration reported by EDMS. ICounty of Orange EIR No. 573 8-133 Alternatives lS4Auutatta de Table 8.6-6- Ytar2020 Alternative F Fedichat One Hour Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentration For Interaction, with the Highest Volume and Worst Level of Service (LOS) INTN HTR.RSEC INGSTREETS RECI' REC21 RE& RECO RECSS RECO REC71 RECea RE& RECTO" RECIl" RECl2" CITYOFORANGE" 345 Jamboree&Chapman 129 129 13.1 129 129 131 127 131 127 127 126 125 CITY OF SANTA ANA" 154 hheAnlmr&Mom 130 13.1 131 132 129 12.8 128 130 128 129 126 128 152 hfam&SmIlmer 129 130 127 13.0 126 12.9 12.5 124 126 127 130 128 90 Grand &Edinger 128 129 12.9 132 129 130 126 129 125 129 128 126 CITY OFTUSTIN" 93 Newport&Edinger 131 130 12.7 131 126 125 125 12.6 126 129 125 128 115 Von Kaman &Banana 129 13.0 130 128 125 130 12.6 128 125 124 12.6 129 95 Tustin Ranch&Edinger 13.1 129 123 130 126 128 12.5 I26 128 12,8 125 129 CITY OF IRVINE" 116 Isaduue& Reuters 83 04 80 81 77 7.9 7.7 7.9 79 78 79 83 156 Jamboree&Main 81 8.1 81 78 7.6 7.8 7.7 78 7.7 7.8 78 81 134 Jamboree&Alton 80 80 el 79 76 7.9 76 7.8 78 78 1.8 81 98 Collor &Irvine Center 80 80 at 81 76 78 78 7.9 7.7 79 78 79 175 lamborce&Michelson 81 78 78 86 75 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 78 78 78 ISI Red 11.11&MacA"hor 81 79 79 80 7.4 7.8 70 78 7.7 78 77 81 155 Von Kaman &Main 79 81 82 7.9 77 81 76 7.7 77 78 7.7 79 153 Red H01&Main 7.9 80 7.9 80 76 78 76 7.7 76 7.6 76 76 174 Van Kaman &Michelson 78 7.9 7.7 76 74 75 75 74 74 7.6 74 77 186 MacArthur &Canopus 81 7.8 78 7.9 7,4 75 75 76 7.6 76 7.5 7.7 177 Cut ver&Michelson 7,8 7.9 76 76 7.4 76 75 74 7.5 7.5 7.7 78 CM OF LAGUNA BEACH" 299 Moullon&El Toro 78 78 7.3 7.9 75 77 76 78 74 7.7 75 15 CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS" 280 El Toro&Avd Canals 7.9 70 78 7.7 7.4 77 74 75 76 76 75 77 NOW •-Concenuatior" are in Peru per millmn(ppm);federal l hour CO standard is 35 ppm; Stele l hour CO standard is 20 pp. I-RECI SW CORNER 2-REC2 SECORNER 3-REC3 NECORNER 4-REC4 NW CORNER 5-RECS S DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 6-REC6 N APPROACH -MID BLOCK 7-REC7 E DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 8-RECS W, APPROACH -MID BLOCK 9-RLC9 N. DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 10-RECTO S APPROACH -MID BLOCK 11-RECII W DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 12-REC12 E APPROACH -MID BLOCK 13.7 he ambient one hour CO concentration, 12 0 ppm, the srsond highest onchour CO rnneretullion et the neares .4 monitoring elallon, Central Orange County Air Monitoring Shoot bdwcrn the years 19931e 1997, is added 10 the celculated one hour levels. W -The ambient onc-hour CO concentration, 70 ppm, the second highoutone-hour CO oneenhuinn m the nar"t air monimnng station, Saddleback Valley Air Monilming Station between the years 1993 to 1997, is addW to the relead,ed one hour levcts 8-134 Ate" ow ow- ow 1,w- Owl 1�1' del fW tmi . go no i M At w ft ft a a a A lk._a 1-4 Table 5.6-7- Year 2020 Alternative F-Predicted Eight IlourAmbtent Carbon Manozide C6neentration For Intersections with the )lighent Volume and Worst Level OrService (LOS) INTN INTERSECTING STREETS RECI' RECe RECJ' REC4a RECS' RECA REC7' RECea REC9' RECTO" RECH" REC12ra CITY OF ORANGE" 345 Jamboree & Chapman 9.6 86 88 86 86 88 8.5 88 85 8.5 8.4 84 CITY OFSANTA ANA" 154 MacAnhur&Maur 07 88 88 88 86 86 06 8.7 86 86 8,4 86 152 Main &SunOosver 86 87 85 87 BA 86 84 83 SA 8.5 87 36 90 Grand & Edinger 86 86 86 88 06 87 84 86 e4 86 06 84 CITY OF TUSTIN" 93 115 Newport & Mager 08 8.7 85 08 84 Von Karmen &Bananca 86 07 84 0,4 OA 84 86 84 06 95 87 8.6 84 Tustin Ranch&Edinger 8.8 86 86 87 84 07 84 86 84 83 04 86 8.6 04 8.4 86 86 84 06 CITY OF IRVINE" 116 156 lamboree&Barran 50 5.1 48 49 46 Jamboree&Win 4.9 4.7 4.6 47 4.7 47 47 5.0 134 49 49 47 45 Jamboree&Alton 48 49 49 47 45 4.7 46 47 46 47 4.7 49 90 Culver &Irvine Center 40 4.8 49 49 45 47 4.7 4.5 4.7 47 47 47 47 4.7 49 175 Jamba"e&Michelson 49 47 47 48 45 46 46 46 46 46 47 4.7 47 47 47 47 151 155 Red IId1&MacAnhur 4.9 4.7 47 48 4A Van Korman&Mans 47 49 47 4.7 47 46 4.7 46 49 III 49 4.7 46 Red 1h1l&Main 47 48 47 48 45 4.9 4.7 45 4.5 46 46 46 4.5 47 4.5 46 4.7 174 Von Karmen&Mtchelson 47 4.7 46 45 44 45 4,5 44 44 4.5 4S 4A 45 46 196 177 MacAnhur&Campus 49 47 4.7 47 44 Culver & Michelson 47 47 45 45 45 45 45 43 46 45 45 44 4,5 45 44 45 45 46 47 CITY OF LACUNA BEACH" 299 Mention &Cl Toro 47 47 47 47 45 46 45 47 4A 46 4.5 45 CITY OF LAGUNA II ILLS" 290 El Taro&Avd Carlene 4.7 47 47 46 44 46 44 45 4.5 45 4.5 4.6 Nate. •-Cancenuations are in pans par mdiion(ppm),rednal and State 3 hour CO standard is 9 ppm 1-RECI SW CORNER 2-REC2 SECORNER 3-REC3 NECORNER 4-REC4 N3VCORNER 5-REC5 S DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 6-REC6 N APPROACH -MID BLOCK 7-REC7 & DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 8-REC8 W. APPROACH -MID BLOCK 9-REC9 N DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK IO-RECIO S. APPROACH -MID BLOCK it -RECII W DEPARTURE -MID BLOCK 12-RECI2 E. APPROACH -MID BLOCK U -The ambient eight -hour CO coft,wrahon, 8 Opp., Ih"oesu l highest agM1t-hwrwneenl"lion Sution between at the Rarest air monitoringaHlian, Cenral Orange County Air Monitoring theyn" er 1993 end 1997, is added to the productarthe nlwlated one -hour levels multiplied by a persistent facmrere 7. M-The ambient cighbhour CO wncweation, 4 1 ppm, du aewnd highest eight hour wncenInthon el the nearest air monitoringstation, Saddleback Slaoonbetweenthevearsof1993end Valley Air Monitoring '"IN9 1Wro rryUlr 8-135 0 J( QnoifryWRG8Bs101000TA8lErbl101OFfBhrJJ 8.6.4.6 Topography Under Alternative F the main runway at JWA (Runway 19R-IL) would be extended 1,100 feet to the north; however, no expansion of overall airport acreage is planned. Under Alternative F, terminal expansion would potentially require minor grading, but because the site is essentially flat, there would be no significant impact related to topography. Therefore, Alternative F would not be expected to result in adverse impacts related to topography at JWA, similar to the result found for the Proposed Project. As noted above, approval of this alternative would lead to the adoption of a nonaviation alternative for the El Toro site. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the project. 8.6.4.7 Soils, Geology and Seismicity This alternative would implement improvements at JWA within the existing developed area of the site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to soils, geology, or seismicity would occur, similar to the Proposed Project. Under Alternative F the main runway at JWA (Runway 19R-IL) would be extended 1,100 feet to the north; however, no expansion of overall airport acreage is planned. Therefore, Alternative F would not result in adverse impacts related to soils, geologic features or seismicity, similar to the Proposed Project. No aviation uses would be developed at the El Toro site. However, this alternative would lead to the adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site and would not, therefore, avoid or substantially lessen impacts of the project. 8.6.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Since all improvements would occur within the existing developed area of JWA, this alternative will incur hydrology and water quality impacts at JWA similar to the Proposed Project. No aviation uses would be developed at the El Toro site. However, this alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site and would not, therefore, avoid or substantially lessen impacts of the project. 8.6.4.9 Biological Resources Since the biological resource component at JWA is very limited, no direct or indirect impacts would be expected at JWA under Alternative F. For indirect impacts, the biological resource issues would not be substantially different from the Proposed Project. There would be some slight differences in impacts as a result of noise exposure and aircraft overflights since the aircraft operations differ at JWA. Noise and overflight characteristics are different between Alternative F and the Proposed Project, because the 60 CNEL contour is longer for Alternative F. However, this difference would not result in adverse impacts to biological resources in the Newport Back Bay. This alternative would not, therefore, avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the project. Alternatives County of Orange EIR No. 573 8436 LJ a I 0' 9 8.6.4.10 Public Services and Utilities This alternative would have greater adverse impacts at JWA than the Proposed Project. Due to the plan to expand JWA in Alternative F, a need for increased fire and emergency medical, police services, and transit to the area would likely arise. Like the Proposed Project, mitigation measures prescribed in section 4.10 (Public Services and Utilities) would reduce staffing impacts to below a level of significance. As described in Section 4.10 (Public Services and Utilities), the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts related to utilities. Alternative F could also be served with utilities without significant adverse impacts after mitigation, similar to conditions under the Proposed Project. Depending on the specific land uses and utility services and infrastructure needs associated with Alternative F, a utility infrastructure different from that anticipated under the Proposed Project may be necessary to most effectively provide utility services under this alternative. Mitigation similar to that for the Proposed Project would reduce adverse impacts of this alternative related to utilities infrastructure and services to below a level of significance. This alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the project. 8.6.4.11 Natural Resources and Energy This alternative would have greater adverse impacts at JWA than the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.11 (Natural Resources and Energy), the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to natural resources, with the exception of + significant adverse impacts to agricultural resources on the El Toro site, which could not be i mitigated to below a level of significance. This alternative could reduce or avoid the project impacts on agricultural soils depending on the reuse alternative selected for the El Toro site. Section 8.3 analyzes the impacts of a nonaviation alternative for the El Toro site. There are no natural or agricultural resources at JWA. Implementation of the Proposed Project also would result in a less than significant increase in regional energy consumption, associated primarily with construction and operation of a new international airport at the WAS El Toro site, as compared to existing conditions. Under this alternative, the temporary- increase in energy consumption associated with construction activities at WAS El Toro would be replaced by a lower level of effort to expand JWA. From a regional standpoint, this alternative also would realize lower energy consumption levels associated with airport operations compared with the two -airport system of the Proposed Project. This energy savings would be offset somewhat, however, by increased highway travel, as the shortfall in forecasted demand for air travel service forces air travelers to drive to other airports within the region than would be required with the Proposed Project. The ultimate build out and phased development of Alternative F would require more intense construction efforts, and entail a higher level of operations at JWA than the Proposed County of Orange EIR No. 573 0-137 Alternatives ri Project. Therefore, the impacts related to natural resources and energy would be greater to JWA under Alternative F because of the higher level of operations and higher energy consumption. In conclusion, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts' compared to the project. 8.6.4.12 Aesthetics, Light and Glare This alternative would have greater impacts at JWA compared to the Proposed Project. With mitigation measures, the impacts of this alternative would be reduced but would remain significant. This alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation reuse plan for the El Toro site similar to the ETRFA Nonaviation Alternative. Refer to Section 8.3 for an analysis of this alternative. Physical changes to the JWA site under Alternative F include extension of the main commercial runway (Runway 1L-19R) from 5,700 feet to 6,800 feet, which is the maximum extension allowable within the existing property boundary of the airport. The existing terminal concourse would be lengthened by several hundred feet on the north and south ends to provide additional aircraft gates. An additional terminal would be created to the south and connected to the existing terminal. Additional parking would be provided in all remaining areas around the new terminal, and additional long-term parking would be provided in the general aviation areas on the southeast and southwest of the airport. Additional off -site parking would likely be necessary for this alternative. Expansion of access roadways to JWA would be necessary to accommodate the expanded passenger service under Alternative F. Expansions would potentially include the existing direct access from SR-55, Campus Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard at Michelson Drive. Alternative F would increase the intensity of development on and around the JWA site, whereas the Proposed Project would make no substantial aesthetic changes to the site (a slight reduction of commercial service is proposed). The potential effects of light and glare under this alternative would be greater than those of the Proposed Project due to the increased services at the airport, especially evening (the nighttime curfew is assumed to continue for commercial flights) aircraft light and glare impacts on nearby residential areas (e.g. Santa Ana Heights). Ground level light and glare impacts would be reduced to a level �of insignificance with County Standard Condition of Approval LG 1. In conclusion, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the project at the JWA site. 8.6.4.13 Cultural Resources Improvements at JWA under Alternative F would occur within the physical confines of the existing airport site. Like the Proposed Project, there would be no additional or new effects on cultural resources since there are no known archaeological, paleontological or historic resources on the already developed JWA airport property. Approval of this alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site, which could potentially Alternatives County of Orange EIR No. 573 8-138 11 I I is I I 1 I I� impact cultural resources more than the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the project. 8.6.4.14 Recreation Under Alternative F, noise impacts on the use of area recreational facilities in the JWA area would increase due to the enlarged 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the increased commercial aviation and cargo services under this alternative. This alternative would avoid aviation noise impacts on recreation uses at the El Toro site but would increase aviation impacts from aircraft noise on the use of trails, parks, and other recreational facilities at the JWA site. Approval of this alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation plan for the El Toro site similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. Refer to Section 8.3 for an analysis of the nonaviation plan impacts. 8.6.4.15 Public Health and Safety Aviation Safety Compared to the Proposed Project, under Alternative F there would be an increase of approximately 97,900 air carrier and air cargo operations and a decrease of approximately 352,400 general aviation operations at JWA. Under this scenario, the potential air carrier and air cargo accident risks at JWA would increase by approximately 145.0% to reflect the number of increasing aviation activity diverted from OCX to JWA. The potential accident risks for general aviation at JWA would decrease by 98.2%. Since there is no aviation activity at OCX under this alternative, there would be zero aviation risks. Compared to the Proposed Project relative to on -airport and off -airport fatal accidents per million operations, there would be no significant adverse impacts under this alternative related to aviation safety at the MCAS El Toro site or at JWA. Compared to the existing conditions, there would be an increase of approximately 75,392 air carrier and air cargo operations and a decrease of approximately 321,024 general aviation operations at JWA. Under this scenario, the potential air carrier and air cargo accident risks at JWA would increase by approximately 83.8% to reflect the number of increasing operations and the potential general aviation accident risks would decrease by 98.0% correspondingly. 8.6.4.16 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes Under this alternative, aviation facilities would be expanded to the maximum available capacity within the existing airport property limits at JWA. Hazardous waste handling practices would remain unchanged at JWA; however, an increase in hazardous materials consumption, particularly jet fuel, commensurate with the expansion of aviation facilities would result. County of Orange EIR No. 573 8-139 Alternatives Like the Proposed Project, any use of hazardous materials and/or generation of hazardous waste at JWA under Alternative F would be regulated by applicable State law, federal law, and regulations pertaining to worker protection, hazardous materials storage and use, and hazardous waste generation and disposal. Implementation of these regulations will reduce potential impacts associated with the presence of these hazardous substances to below a level of significance. This alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation alternative at the El Toro site similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. Refer to Section 8.3 for an analysis of nonaviation impacts. 8.6.4.17 Socioeconomics Under this alternative, 8,500 jobs would be generated at JWA in 2020, which represents a net increase of 6,400 jobs at JWA over existing 1998 conditions. The number of jobs . generated at JWA under this alternative would therefore be substantially greater, at approximately 5,200 jobs, than the number of jobs generated at JWA under the Proposed Project. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the WAS El Toro site would develop with a range of nonaviation uses similar to those shown in the ETRPA Nonaviation Plan. This development would result in an estimated 50,700 jobs, 13,600 persons, and 5,900 housing units being located on the site in 2020. This level of activity is significantly higher than the level anticipated under the Proposed Project. In total, this alternative is projected to generate 59,000 jobs, 13,600 persons, and 5,900 housing units on the project site. This figure is significantly higher than the number of jobs, persons, and housing units expected under the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, economic activity on the JWA and WAS El Toro sites, as well as expenditures by visitors arriving by air at JWA, would stimulate additional off -site job growth. Given the higher total number of on -site jobs for WAS El Toro and JWA and the lower number of air passengers served by this alternative, the number of off -site jobs stimulated by the airport system could be similar to the Proposed Project. Given the greater number of jobs generated under Alternative F, at 59,000 jobs versus 29,500 jobs under the Proposed Project, the magnitude of impacts related to induced growth or concentration of population and employment in the area, and increasing demand for housing, including low and moderate income housing, would be significantly higher than under the Proposed Project. However, the additional demand for housing created by project related employment would be partially offset by the housing to be developed on the MCAS El Toro site under this alternative. The employment, population, and housing projections under Alternative F would also be inconsistent with the adopted regional forecasts, as under the Proposed Project. In conclusion, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen Proposed Project impacts. Alternatives County of Orange EIIt No. 573 B-140 111 8.6.4.18 Risk of Upset The ultimate build out and phased development of this alternative would entail no aviation reuse at the El Toro site and a market -driven increase in operations at JWA. General aviation operations would be eliminated and the main JWA runway would be extended to accommodate expanded commercial service. This alternative would generate an increase in demand for jet fuel at JWA, as well as associated tank truck jet fuel transport operations since JWA (unlike OCX) is not served by pipelines. Additional requirements for fuel storage capacity on the JWA site also would be required. Under this circumstance, the risk of upset potential at JWA would be higher than under the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 4.18 (Risk of Upset), the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to public health and safety resulting from project -related risk of upset conditions after mitigation. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen impacts compared to the project at JWA, but would avoid aviation impacts at the El Toro site. 8.6.5 Feasibility This alternative is feasible from a physical standpoint in that the existing main runway can be extended to serve the intended market role (short- and medium -haul and limited long - haul). The existing short general aviation runway can also be converted to a taxiway. The existing terminal building can be expanded to accommodate the projected demand. The present facilities can be expanded to meet projected demand in this alternative with some exceptions. Some vehicle parking would be located off -airport. In addition, facilities for in- flight catering would be located off -airport. No space would be available at the airport for aircraft maintenance. From an operational standpoint, the single runway for JWA is capable of supporting a limited long -haul market role. However, it is not feasible for the runway in this alternative" to accommodate operations by unlimited long -haul or full international service. General aviation operations can be accommodated on a very limited basis, however, the more than 500 JWA based general aviation aircraft must be relocated to other general aviation airports in the region. Furthermore, since the airport would be reduced to a single runway, it could be subject to periods of closure if the runway was under repair or otherwise unusable. From a market perspective, the alternative allows some growth in passenger service beyond today's passenger levels and some growth in all -cargo service. It does not accommodate a substantial portion of Orange County's long-term air travel needs, including general aviation demand. The costs for Alternative F, described in ASW Technical Report 6, Volume 2, Appendix D are described as "order of magnitude" because they were prepared without the benefit of a master plan. They can be used, however, in a general comparison with the capital costs of County of Orange EIR No. 573 Alternatives 8.141 .tl the Proposed Project. The order of magnitude cost for Alternative F was estimated at $350 million. The net revenue for this alternative would be expected to be less than other aviation 1 "build" alternatives due to the lower level of airport activity. In conclusion, this alternative would be physically feasible, but would result in operational and development limitations, and would not meet the market objectives of the project. 8.6.6 Conclusions Alternative F does not: • Encourage growth of air service opportunities; • Implement two airport system; • Enhance GA opportunities for O.C. residents; and • Take advantage of existing land use restrictions. In comparison to the Proposed Project, Alternative F would result in significant regional air quality impacts greater than the Proposed Project, and additional land use impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts, public services and utilities impacts, natural resources and energy impacts, and aesthetics, light and glare impacts at JWA than under the Proposed Project. This alternative would lead to adoption of a nonaviation alternative for the El Toro site similar to the ETRPA Nonaviation Alternative. Refer to Section 8.3 for conclusions regarding nonaviation uses. L� L� hJl: Altematives County of Orange EIR No. 573 *� B-142 x,. r RECEIVED BY . PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CITY OP NEWPORT REACH APR 1 b J&01 RESOLUTION N0..2000-086 • " AM -1 rF.12/1 PM • - - 7j81911"0111�12i11213141616 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 04 SANTA ANA EXPRESSING THE CITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING JET AIRPLANE NOISE AT JOHN WAYNE ` AIRPORT AND SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE - CITY --OF NEWPORT BEACH , TO_ .EXTEND THE _-_JO_ HN_ WAYNE-AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: • Q B. The ;City. of,Santa residents and'to pi Noise pollution ,is s azard to Coast Metro,area; and,., is,committed to ensuring the quality of life of our ig for the safety -of our community; ,and, .Y,�concern to the residents of SanWAna; and, y 'departing and landing at John Wayne Airport is 'a" its:in.the airport corridor, especially in the'Sout6' D. This safety hazard has been abated -through the existing John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement by restricting departure and arrival flight times; and, �"� - <%.:i?iT23•.) E. The existing John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement is set to expire on - ,December 31i 2005" and!�..�'�„t', •!:�JY� i� ee,; ,.:; S .:'fie :''.i f!:�i•-"i9�: T fi':!'iit':�',7':z:•j ,-;:.., •�;:.,,,;J:,',: t-'{ F. '' ' f The City of Newport Beach, as a signatory to the .existip 9. 'John Wayne- Airport Settlement Agreement, has formally taken action to request the County,of Orange to -support a process to evaluate the impacts of an extension'ofthe John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement fora period of -20 years; and, _ is WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors has agreed to work with the City of Newport Beach to study a possible extension of the Settlement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the' City of Santa Ana supports the effort by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange to evaluate an extension of the,John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement for a period of 20 years and to -duly. consider the impacts of the extension'on`communities within the John Wayne Airport Corridor. Resolution No. 2000-086 ' _- Page 1 Of ADOPTED this 18' day of December,' 000,' ATTEST: Clerk of the Council COUNCILMEMBERS: McGuigan Ave Alvarez 'Ave Bist Aye i Christy 41, 1 �rAye' ra'-r' J. Franklin i ,- Aver,- Solorlo Aye ED AS TO FORM: ` Pph w. gletcher; City Attorney a CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify the'attached Resolution No. 2000-086 to be the original resolution adopted by the City.Council,of the City of Santa Ana on December 18. 2000. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana u Resolution No. 2000-086 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA Office of the City Manager Orr• . Date: April 17, 2001 To: City Manager/City Council From: David M. Morgan, Assistant City Manager Subject: Extension of the Settlement Agreement at John Wayne Airport Recommendation: That the City Council approve, by Resolution, a request that the Orange County Board of Supervisors support an extension of the current John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. Discussion: In 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a document known as the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement (Agreement). This Agreement established limits on the number and timing of commercial jet departures from John Wayne Airport (JWA) as well as limits on the number of annual passengers that can be served at the airport. The current Agreement will expire on December 31, 2005. While JWA is an important component to the economic engine of Orange County, the Agreement helped balance the Airport's needs with providing important "quality of life" safeguards to those communities under the Airport's flight path, including the City of Anaheim. The attached Resolution requests that the Orange County Board of Supervisors begin the necessary steps to extend the current JWA Agreement with the existing restrictions. As of March 28, 2001, the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Villa Park, Tustin, and Orange passed similar resolutions. As the extension process proceeds, staff will keep the City Council informed of its progress. Additional air capacity demand in Orange County needs to be addressed though aviation reuse at El Toro MCAS. Anaheim is on record in support of an environmentally designed airport use at that location. The entire County needs to share the responsibility for air transportation. 7 Impact on the Budeet: None. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF t.IEWPrAT BEACH Respectfully submitted, AM APR 2 3 2001 PM 71819 110 111112 111213141516 David =eT Assistant City Manager 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California 92805 (714) 765-5162 9 FAX (714) 765-5164 9 www.anaheim.net A 22 r RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENCE THE EXTENSION PROCESS OF JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT'S SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ASSURE CONTINUATION OF CURRENT OPERATION RESTRICTIONS. WHEREAS, the existing John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Agreement which includes various restrictions on the operation of the airport, expires December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the 1985 Settlement Agreement establishes limits on the number and timing of commercial departures from JWA as well as limits the annual passengers that can be served; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, as the owner/operator of JWA and one of the major participants in the Settlement Agreement, needs to ensure that necessary steps are taken to extend the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, portions of the City of Anaheim are in the current JWA flight pattern and have been less impacted due to the various air traffic restrictions required by the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, while the City of Anaheim has indirectly benefited by JWA, the City of Anaheim has also received its "fair share" of environmental impacts associated with JWA's flight patterns and corridors over neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions within the City of Anaheim and does not warrant additional environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim is concerned with changes in air traffic over our community without the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim City Council strongly believes that the extension of the JWA Settlement Agreement will help preserve the quality of life for many neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions within our community; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim is one record in support of an environmentally designed airport at El Toro MCAS to meet increased air capacity demand for Orange County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Anaheim, in direct concern for preserving the quality Y of life within our community, expresses its strong support for extending the current JAW Settlement Agreement. City 2001. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the Council of the City of Anaheim this 17th day of April , f ATTEST: CITY CLE K OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 39621.1 I , + STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001R-82 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 17th day of April, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None (SEAL) • RESOLUTION NO.9429 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENCE THE EXTENSION PROCESS OF JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT'S SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO ASSURE CONTINUATION OF CURRENT OPERATION RESTRICTIONS. WHEREAS, the existing John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Agreement, which includes various restrictions on the operation of the airport expires December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the 1985 Settlement Agreement establishes limits on the number and timing of commercial departures from JWA as well as limits the annual passengers that can be served; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, as the owner operator of JWA and one of the major participants in the Settlement Agreement, needs to ensure that necessary steps are taken to extend the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Orange is concerned with changes in air traffic over our community since portions of our City are in the current JWA flight pattern; and WHEREAS, JWA has been a good neighbor and County of Orange staff have been responsive to questions and concerns from our staff and residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Orange City Council strongly believes that the extension of the JWA Agreement will help to preserve the quality of life for many neighborhoods within our community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange, in direct concern for preserving the neighborhoods within our community, expresses its strong support to extending the current JWA settlement agreement. ADOPTED, this 27`h day of March, 2001. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MARK NW"HY Mark A. Murphy, Mayor of the City of Orange ATTEST: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY CASSANDRA J. CATHCART Cassandra J. Cathcart, City Clerk of the City of Orange I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City`Council bf the City of'Oraiige arxregularmeetingthereof•held-on the 27�-day-of March 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: SLATER, ALVAREZ, MAYOR MURPHY, COONTZ NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSBNT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ORIGINAL SIGNED BY CASSANDRA J CATHCART Cassandra J. Cathcart,City Clerk of the City of Orange D Reso. 9429 . - 2 - dh ✓1 4 RESOLUTION NO.01-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN EXPRESSING THE CITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING AIRPLANE NOISE AT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AND SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO EVALUATE A POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 9 10 WHEREAS, the City of Tustin is committed to ensuring the quality of life of its residents and providing for the safety of its community; and, 11 WHEREAS, noise pollution is a safety concern to the residents of Tustin; 12 and, 13 WHEREAS, noise from jet airplanes departing and landing at John Wayne 14 Airport may impact residents within the airport flying path; and, 15 WHEREAS, the noise impacts have been abated through the existing John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement by restricting departure and arrival 16 flight times; and, 1711 WHEREAS, the existing John Wayne Settlement Agreement is set to 18 expire on December 31, 2005; and, 19 WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach, as a signatory to the existing John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, has formally taken action to request the 20 County of Orange support a process to evaluate the impacts of an extension of 21 the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement for a period of 20 years. 22 NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Tustin supports the effort by the City of Newport Beach and the County of 23 Orange to evaluate an extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement for a period of 20 years and to duly consider impacts of the extension 24 on communities within the John Wayne Airport corridor. 25 26 �:' Resolution No. 01-08 Page 2 of 2 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, 2 held on the 5�h day of February, 2001. 4 Tracy Will: orley 5 Mayor a 8 Pamela Stoker 9 City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN RESOLUTION NO.01-08 City of Tustin RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION ) SS I, PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, hereby certifies that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; and that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 01- 08 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of February, 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Worley, Thomas, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima None None None !RESOLiITAC),N 1!10 30Ein 08Ei OF'T1I6,Ch Y,OF7 AT BE IT.RE$MV.ED BY THE MY .COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA A5 t=OLI* W, A eky cf, ante ', a .is;committed to•ensudng•.the quality ,of life'4f our ryes . 4iits,wind to,pionding tor,the Safety-df our :community; snd, B: Noise poJ,1#0)n'1 ,O-;afOty cohcem to•the residents,of Sa•,'r� i arid, a4 t�oisD, ' ' Z frp t�epsrting.and landing at Bohn t�ytrrie'AlrpO4 e, s�ttyy aZa'ro,'td: ':. Idlnt "A the atiport:oprridor, espeNalrtyy. fn " aP h cyst etrp',srea,;lllfidr. D. This;safet�G:hgiza hes:bpeq abated ttiroiiBh;the,:exlstirlg:':lotin.Vyayrle Nrpoit Settlement Apjreement by restricting departo; and •aftNai :flight times;.and, E, The existitr8 John Wayne Airport SWarfient•Agreement Is•bet;to 0 . to Gn, •D�ce'mtlej;43�,;�2Q05;'ando NewPbrt"8soc11,?as a signaibgFtD�iedrpgpiJohrl;Wayne ty". Self went AgrOa n&it-:Iles ttorrrMily',t -argon t9 *mt the County,.of' Orange td pppdrt a process to evaluats the impacts of an .exter�ioit'oftheJohnVllayiie.9 OOrtSettlementAgreementforaperiod-of 20 years,,. -and, WkkEAS, the aranga county Board of Supervisor: halo agreed' to work with the.Chy,'of Na"oft Beach, to;study a, possibleexten"sfon of•the Settlemdnr Agreement. NQW THERE�dREr,HE; (T'�itrSOi VED 1haY,thp G1ty CqunciUof tiie't ItyVfSanta Ana supports the effort' fSy'the; Gih+ of 'Newport Beach and: the County of 'Orange to evaluate -an extpnsipn�!ttie;3,ohr! Wayne Airport $ettlementAgreement for'a,;perlod.of 20 years and i dtrljr cotl``plldder• the liitpagts af;the extension cn'Ooritmyniitises'Ntitltfli:ttis John Wayne Airport Corridori Rei6Mh No, 2000-00n, Pane 7-ot2 APOOt-l5131hRo� dWWPjWLb—ei,'1200Q: ATUSTi 00 - PatHda E. HWly , Cl6rlt of . tI* co,uncli ,Nlido' AMC McGuigan. M Alvarez. iA Blot M* Frank'11';, CERTIFICATE OF, OWGIMLIT 1. PATRI CA E. • HEALY,'blirk of is, Co undi. do -A-MkF3NWIIfi0TIdQ -Resolution :No.22MMtolbafhb,dfloinal-ratolution,vidopted'.,.bi'tho",'Ok �Co 004 O.aimbftya. SMta'Ana:bfrDeWn 183 y. - aQ 'CT ouncli . orkof.thevC Rs�. . 1. "NI No. 2000-M, pa4VM of RESOLUTION NO. 00-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ASKING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SUPPORT IN CONCEPT, THE DESIGNATION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AS THE LEAD AGENCY IN PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF AN EXTENSION OF THE JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Community Objective 01-D6 setting forth the City's position on aviation facilities for Orange County including limiting future expansion and operation of John Wayne Airport (JWA); and WHEREAS, the existing John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, which includes various restrictions on the operation of the airport, expires December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach, as a signatory to the 1985 Settlement Agreement, has formally taken action to request the County of Orange to support a process to evaluate the impacts of an extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement for a period of 20 years; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange each must approve an amendment to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach is willing to prepare the environmental document for the project and perform the other functions required of a lead agency by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, CEQA allows two public agencies to enter into an agreement with one of the entities as the lead agency and to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document as well as jointly perform other functions required by CEQA; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA hereby requests Supervisor James W. Silva and the Orange County Board of Supervisors: 1. To support the preparation of an Environmental Document (ED) by the City of Newport Beach that evaluates the impacts of an amendment of the JWA settlement agreement to extend the term with no change to the current legally permissible and authorized level of operations (project); 2. To approve in concept, the project description (Exhibit A) for purposes of conducting the Initial Study and preparing the ED; and 3. To direct the Interim CEO to: A. Request County staff to fully cooperate with the City of Newport Beach in all matters pertaining to the preparation of the ED for the project; B. To present to the Board of Supervisors for approval an agreement with the City of Newport Beach with the following components: I. Newport Beach will be the lead agency for the project and will designate a primary contact person; II. The County will be a responsible agency and will designate a primary contact person; III. The County will provide Newport Beach with all studies and reports, including those prepared in conjunction with the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and the El Toro Reuse planning process, that pertain to the environmental issues identified in the Initial Study and related analysis of the project (studies and reports) shall be provided in the most convenient form for use (computer disk or E-Mail); IV. An equitable sharing of costs relative to the preparation of the ED such as project management and any additional studies and reports (or augmentation of existing studies and reports) necessary to full disclosure of potential impacts and appropriate mitigation; V. The County will have full access to all studies, reports, and draft Environmental Documents; VI. Newport Beach will consider, in good faith, County comments on the adequacy of any draft ED and the accuracy/adequacy of studies, reports, and documents related to the project and the ED; VIi. Newport Beach and the County to meet bi-weekly to review progress of the ED, the status of studies and reports, and to discuss relevant issues. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18`h day of September, 2000. ATTEST: Deputy Cit Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) Mayor'of th City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM Goy CITY ATT Efe� I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. oa -73 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18"' day of September, 2000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 19"' day of September, 2000. Deputy CitylClerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Co ncil of the City of Costa Mesa