HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - JWA Settlement AgreementDecember 10, 2002
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of the City Council
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee
RE: JWA Settlement Agreement Amendments
Proposed Modifications to Amendments Approved June 25, 2002
DATE: December 4, 2002
INTRODUCTION
In August 2000, the City Council asked the Board of Supervisors to consider
an extension of the term of the JWA Airport Settlement Agreement (Settlement
Agreement) and appointed this ad hoc Committee to represent the interests of
Newport Beach residents. Since that initial request, the City and the County
have approved a cooperative agreement for the preparation of an environmental
impact report (EIR), prepared and certified EIR 582, implemented a
comprehensive public information program, and conducted numerous
meetings with the public and representatives of impacted communities to
discuss the various Settlement Agreement extension "scenarios."
In June 2002, after almost two years of public discussion and debate, this
Committee recommended Council approval of amendments to the JWA
Settlement Agreement (Amendments) that extended the term for ten years and
authorized increases in passenger loading bridges, noise regulated departures
and passenger service levels. The Amendments were consistent with "Scenario
1" in EIR 582. The City Council approved the Amendments on June 25, 2002
but deferred filing the Amendments with the Federal Court pending
discussions with the FAA and the airlines. Beginning in July 2002, the parties
met with the FAA and the airlines to obtain their views on the Amendments.
Congressman Cox and the entire Orange County delegation have consistently
supported the extension of the Settlement Agreement and have communicated
their views to the FAA and other members of Congress.
In October, the airlines signaled a willingness to actively encourage the FAA to
issue an opinion confirming the validity of the Amendments in consideration of
modifications to the Amendments (increases in flights, passenger service levels
and passenger loading bridges or gates) that would address specific issues
related to operations at JWA. The Committee has, with the assistance of
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 4, 2002
Page 2
airport planning consultants, evaluated the potential impacts of these
modifications and determined that certain aspects (See Exhibit A) could be
implemented without any adverse impact on the residents in Newport Beach
and the other "Corridor Cities." The Committee believes that it is in the best
interests of the residents of Newport Beach and the Corridor Cities to authorize
the modifications to the Amendments discussed in this memo (and described in
Exhibit A) in consideration of a letter from the FAA confirming the validity of
the Amendments. Representatives of the County, SPON and AWG are in
agreement with the Committee's analysis, conclusions and recommendations.
The Airport Director will recommend the Board of Supervisors, on December
10, 2002, take action similar to the Committee's recommendation.
A. Additional Gates
The Committee retained Landrum 8c Brown (L&,B), a world- renowned air-port-
planning firm that was, in the early 1980's involved in the design of the
terminal and airport layout plan to determine whether two additional gates
would impact the number of departures during the peak hour (7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m.). L&,B has determined the number of aircraft on the airfield (remain
over night or "RON" positions) at the beginning of the operational day is one of
the limiting factors in the number of departures during the peak hour.
JWA currently has 14 gated and 16 non -gated RON positions (30 total). The
County would have 18 gated and 13 non -gated RON positions under Scenario 1
(total of 31). The construction of two additional gates (total of 20) would
displace four non -gated RON positions and only one of those could be replaced
(resulting in 10 non -gated RON positions and a total of 30 RON positions).
The addition of the two gates may slightly increase the efficiency of JWA during
the day and will facilitate the admission of new entrant carriers. In summary,
the addition of two gates will actually reduce the number of RON positions, will
not increase peak hour departures and will not have a significant noise impact
on the community.
B. Additional Passengers
The Committee has also evaluated the impacts of increasing the passenger
service levels by in 2003 (from 9.8 MAP to 10.3 MAP) and 2011 (from 10.3 MAP
to 10.8 MAP). The additional passengers would, assuming no increase in noise
regulated departures (Class A operations) be allocated only to Class E (the
quietest) departures or to operations by regional jets (quieter than the Class E
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 4, 2002
Page 3
operations). The initial increase of .5 MAP will allow the County to allocate
more passengers to the extremely quiet regional jets and establish a small
number of "permanent" Class E operations. In the future, the additional
passenger capacity will enable the County and airlines to continue the same
level of service as passenger load factors increase. The Committee is convinced
that the phased increases in passenger service levels will not have a significant
impact on our residents.
C. Additional Flights
The Committee evaluated the impacts of airlines' request for additional flights
(6 Class A departures). This analysis suggests that an increase in Class A
departures could - in combination with the departures authorized in Scenario
1 - have a significant noise impact recommend against any such increase.
However, the Committee supports an interim allocation of the previously
authorized "all- cargo" flights to passenger carriers pending a request for use by
a cargo carrier.
D. Passenger Unloading
The airlines have asked for the right to unload passengers from the apron when
the assigned gate is occupied. The Committee believes that the unloading of
passengers under these circumstances is appropriate providing there is no
authorization to load and unload passengers under normal conditions.
E. FAA Compliance Letter
The Committee is recommending modifications to the previously approved
Amendments only upon receipt of a letter from the FAA confirming that the
Amendments are permitted by and consistent with all federal law for which the
FAA has enforcement responsibility. An FAA compliance letter will help ensure
that the Amendments remain in effect throughout the next thirteen (13) years.
F. Environmental Document
The County is preparing an Addendum to EIR 573 pursuant to provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. A
copy of the Addendum will be distributed to the City Council and members of
the public when completed.
Mayor and Members of the City Council
December 4, 2002
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the City Council:
1) Authorize the City Attorney to execute amendments to the Eighth
Supplemental Stipulation (Amendments) by the County of Orange, City of
Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and the Airport Working
Group of Orange County, Inc. (USCD Case No. CV 85 -1542 TJH (MCx))
that modify certain terms approved by the Settling Parties on June 25,
2002 subject to the following conditions:
(a) That the Amendments are consistent with Exhibit A;
(b) Confirmation that the other Settling Parties have authorized
execution of the Amendments consistent with Exhibit A;
(c) That the City Attorney execute the Amendments immediately
after receipt of a letter from the FAA, satisfactory to the City
Attorney in form and content, confirming, among other things,
that approval and implementation of the Amendments are
permitted by and are consistent with all provisions of federal
law for which FAA has implementation or enforcement
responsibilities, as well as the County's existing grant
agreements with the FAA.
2) In conjunction with these authorizations and after review and
consideration of the Addendum to EIR 582, make appropriate findings and
authorize staff to record a Notice of Determination.
Norma Glover, Chair
JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee
EXHIBIT A
TERMS JUNE 25, 200'2 DECEMBER 10
PASSENGER FLIGHTS 85 85
(NOISE REGULATED)
CARGO FLIGHTS 4 4*
ANNUAL PASSENGERS 9.8 10.3 (1/1/03)
10.8 (1/1/11)
LOADING BRIDGES 18 20
TERM 12/31/15 12/31/15
CURFEW 12/31/20 12/31/20
FAA VALIDATION NO YES
* Two cargo flights can be allocated to passenger carriers on an interim basis until request for
operations submitted by cargo carrier
•
City Council Meeting
December 10, 2002
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of the City Council
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City Attorney
RE: JWA Settlement Agreement Amendments
Proposed Modifications to Amendments Approved June 25, 2002
DATE: December 6, 2002
The JWA Airport Settlement Agreement Extension Committee has issued a
report recommending conditional approval of modifications to the JWA
Settlement Agreement amendments approved June 25, 2002. I have attached
copies of proposed findings referenced in the Committee's report (Exhibit A)
• and a copy of the Addendum to EIR 582 prepared by the County that is
accompanied by a letter transmitted to the FAA by the Airport Director
(Exhibit B). The City Council has previously reviewed and considered EIR
582 and copies of EIR 582 are available in this office for members of the City
Council who wish to reread that document. This office will be transmitting a
redlined version of the JWA Settlement Agreement when all parties have
agreed on the precise wording of the amendments
Robert Burnham
•
ADDENDUM 582 -1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 582
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
SCH NO. 2001011068
County of Orange
John Wayne Airport
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Contact: Alan Murphy
December 2002 •
EXUIEIT 13
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
• 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The County of Orange was the lead agency on the preparation of Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) 582, which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with an
amendment of the term and conditions of the Stipulation of Settling Parties that was approved
by the Honorable Terry J. Hatter. The Stipulated Agreement, also known as the 1985
Settlement Agreement, resolved the litigation entitled County of Orange vs. Air Cal (USDC Case
No. CV85 -1542 TJH (MCX). In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the Final EIR identified and assessed the potential individual and cumulative impacts
of the proposed project. EIR 582 analyzed, at a project level of detail, three alternative
scenarios for the modification of the Settlement Agreement. The entire Settlement Agreement
and copies of the various stipulations making minor modifications to the Settlement Agreement
subsequent to 1985 are contained in Final EIR 582 as Appendices B and C, respectively.
Appendix A of Final EIR 582 provides information on how a flight is defined as Class A,
Class AA, or Class E.
The County of Orange Board of Supervisors certified EIR 582 as adequate and complete on
June 25, 2002. The City of Newport Beach, a responsible agency and also a party to the
Settlement Agreement, took action on Final EIR 582 and the modification of the Settlement
Agreement on June 26, 2002. Both the County of Orange and City of Newport Beach selected
Scenario 1, with modifications. The provisions of Scenario 1, as well as the other two scenarios
addressed in Final EIR 582, are outlined in Section 1.2. Unavoidable significant air quality
impacts, including health risks, were identified. Traffic impacts would be reduced to levels
1191 considered less than significant after mitigation; however, there is not current funding for the
improvements. Given this uncertainty, the Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted for the proposed project also identified traffic as a potentially significant,
unavoidable impact.
Through the development of the revised Access Plan and coordination with the airlines and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), additional modifications to the Settlement Agreement
have been proposed. The County and other settling parties have, on the basis of these
additional discussions and analysis, formulated a revised amendment to the Settlement
Agreement, which is referred to in this Addendum as the Project. As a result of those
modifications to the proposed project, an evaluation of Final EIR 582 is necessary to ensure that
the document fully addresses the potential impacts associated with the Project.
1.2 PROJECT SCENARIOS EVALUATED IN FINAL EIR 582
EIR 582 evaluated the potential impacts that could result from an amendment to the Settlement
Agreement assuming three different scenarios, which were referred to in the document as
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Each scenario was evaluated at an equal level of detail and
proposes different levels of air operations, passenger levels, and facilities improvements. The
Program EIR evaluated the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with each scenario, but
was not intended to be a construction level document.
The Project proposed modifications of some of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement,
including an extension of the term. Final EIR 582 evaluated three "project' scenarios, each with
• different levels of air service and facilities improvements. The three scenarios reflected
negotiations that the County and the City conducted regarding a possible extension of the
Settlement Agreement, and, in that respect, define the terms of any extension of the agreement
R \Pro*ns .WAJwiwedendum Rewizneoz.d« 1 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR Na 582
proposed or acceptable to at least one of the parties. In order to permit the elected officials of
the County and the City to determine the final terms of any extension agreement, the three
project scenarios were evaluated to an equivalent level of detail in EIR 582. •
Table 1 -1 provides a brief summary of the key elements of each scenario addressed in Final
EIR 582.
TABLE 1 -1
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT SCENARIOS EVALUATED IN FINAL EIR 582
Principal Restrictions and
No Project
Constraints
Alternative
Scenario 1"
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Curfew
No change
No change
No change
No change
Noise Regulated Passenger
73
85 as of
85 as of
85 as of 41112002 and
Flights
11112005
41112002
100 as of 11112006
10.8 MAP
No restrictions as of
Annual Passenger Limit
8.4 MAP'
9.8 MAP
as of
41112002
41112002
Cargo Flights
2
2
4 as of
4 as of 11112006
11112006
Passenger Loading Bridge
14
18 as of
18 as of
18 as of 41112002 and 24
Gate Limits
11112005
41112002
as of 11112006
Settlement Agreement
N/A
1213112015
1213112010
1213112015
Extended to
GA Facilities
No
No change
No
No restrictions
restrictions
until 1/1/2021
restrictions
GANO
No change
No change
No change
No change
Master Planning
No
Not permitted
No
No restrictions
restrictions
until 11112016
restrictions
'MAP is the acronym for Million Annual Passengers
" Through the hearing process, modifications were made to Scenario 1 to allow four average daily cargo Flights and to
permit the increased number of Flights and passengers to commence on January 1, 2003.
1.3 PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Through the development of the revised Access Plan and coordination with the airlines and
FAA, additional modifications to the Settlement Agreement have been proposed. The project as
defined by the Modified Settlement Agreement (the Project) is similar to Scenario 2, with minor
modifications. With the Project there would be 85 noise - regulated flights and up to 10.8 MAP,
as with Scenario 2. However in the course of its discussions and additional analysis, the
County has updated its assumptions regarding the fleet mix. As a result, the footprint of the 65
CNEL noise contour for the Project would be smaller than that shown in Final EIR 582 for
Scenario 2. These revised fleet mix assumptions, discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2 of
this Addendum, reflect more closely the current actual fleet mix at JWA and incorporate updated
projections regarding the fleet mix that would be commercially reasonable and thus except to
occur under the Project. In addition, the Access Plan would ensure the implementation of the
revised Fleet mix.
•
Under the Project, the increased flights and passengers could be initiated on January 1, 2003,
but would be phased so that a maximum of 10.3 MAP would apply until 2011, at which point the
limit would go to 10.8 MAP. There would be four air cargo flights allowed. Currently, there are
two air cargo flights operating at JWA. With the Project; the additional two air cargo Flights could
be used to serve passengers until there is sufficient demand for four air cargo flights. Should
this occur, there would be a commensurate reduction in commuter flights or Class E Flights •
because the 10.8 MAP limit would be in force. There would be up to 20 passenger - loading
R1 rode MQWAV WlWdendum Rev 120602 cl c 2 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
bridges allowed at the airport. There would be no reduction in the general aviation at the airport
and the Settlement Agreement would extend until December 31, 2015.
• 1.4 USE OF AN ADDENDUM TO AN EIR
Section 15164(a) of the CEQA guidelines states that "The lead agency or responsible agency
shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are
necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred." Summarized, Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states
that a subsequent EIR is required if:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project that require major revisions to the
previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significance effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified
as complete shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will
be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, (c) mitigation measures or
alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
• substantially reduce one or more significant effect of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation
measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
�J
An Addendum to an EIR is intended to augment existing documentation and is not required to
address areas where no change has occurred. The Addendum is not considered a stand -alone
document, but must be considered in conjunction with the original Final EIR prepared for the
project. This Addendum includes all the topical areas addressed in Final EIR 582 to provide an
update in the documentation and demonstrate if any of the conditions outlined in Section 15162
apply. This analysis is presented in Section 3 of this Addendum.
R1Prop=;UWAUOW dendum RevA206024m 3
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR Na 582
SECTION 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION •
As discussed in Section 1.0, Final EIR 582 evaluated three project scenarios at an equal level of
detail. This allows the decision- makers to choose any of the scenarios as the project for the
Settlement Agreement Amendment based on Final EIR 582. A summary of the project
components for each scenario is presented in Table 1 -1. The Project would provide a level of
operation at JWA that is within the range of the scenarios analyzed in Final EIR 582. This
Addendum to EIR 582 considers if there is any feature of the Project that would result in new or
greater impacts than those discussed and disclosed in Final EIR 582. The components of the
Project are discussed in Section 2.2. As explained in Section 3, the Project would have no new
impacts beyond those previously identified in EIR 582.
2.2 FLEET MIX MODIFICATIONS
As discussed in Section 1.3, through negotiations and continuing discussions with incumbent
and new entrant carriers, JWA has more closely analyzed the existing fleet mix in service at
JWA, and the fleet mix that would be expected to serve JWA into the foreseeable and
accurately predictable future.
The modifications to the aforementioned fleet mix were accomplished using the following
methodology:
(1) Thorough analysis of existing regional commuter operations in both turboprop (TP)
aircraft and regional jet (RJ) aircraft, •
(2) Analysis of those aircraft best suited to operations at JWA within the existing noise and
airfield operational constraints,
(3) Analysis of trends in increased commuter RJ activity, incumbent aircraft, proposed
entrant aircraft and operationally feasible future routes of service,
(4) Analysis of existing aircraft operations at JWA, commercial air carrier trends,
incumbent aircraft, proposed entrant aircraft, and operationally feasible future routes of
service given JWA configuration and operational constraints,
(5) Expected future fleet mix of incumbent air carriers and new entrant air carriers,
(6) Existing cargo operations aircraft and operational feasibility of additional similar or
dissimilar aircraft proposed for future operations at JWA.
With the above methodology, the following changes in fleet mix from the previously approved
project most appropriately reflect the fleet mix to be operated by the airlines service (or
interested in serving) JWA.
As stated, the capacity opportunity beyond those authorized by the Board Action on June 25,
2002 will be reflected in the following changes:
• Commuter passengers were increased from 400,000 to 550,000 total passengers, •
reflected in the 6 total TP Average Daily Departures (ADD) and 19 total RJ ADDs.
R�oje=l AUMlW dendum Re 12OW2 dm 4 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
• Four (4) Class A ADD Cargo flights will be handled by A300/310 Federal Express
Aircraft and Boeing 757 United Parcel Service Aircraft. This analysis represents the
• maximum cargo aircraft able to enter into service at JWA.
• The permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class E Aircraft) was
reduced to 58.56 total ADDs from the previously estimate 73.85 in Final EIR 582,
primarily due to the commuter TP and RJ total passenger allocation.
The resultant Project and analyzed fleet mix as defined by the Amended Stipulation was used to
generate both CNEL at the sensitive receptor locations and Time Above. For all sensitive uses
within the 65 CNEL contour, the noise increase associated with the Project is less than 1.5 dB,
and therefore not a significant noise impact.
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On June 25, 2002, the Board certified Final EIR 582 and authorized execution of an Amended
Stipulation after its approval and execution by the City, SPON and AWG. Since the June 25th
Board approval, the County has continued its discussions with interested parties, including, but
not limited to, the City of Newport Beach, AWG, SPON, and incumbent and potential new
entrant airlines. In connection with these continuing discussions, the airlines requested certain
capacity opportunities beyond those authorized by the Board action of June 25, 2002. As a
result, the City, AWG and SPON have agreed to modifications to the Amended Stipulation that
are substantially responsive to the requests, subject to an opinion of the Chief Counsel of the
FAA concurring with certain specified conditions (the "modified Amended Stipulation ").
The modifications to the Amended Stipulation continue 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:
• 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.
• Increasing 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.
• Increasing the million annual passenger ( "MAP ") level served at JWA from 8.4 MAP to
10.3 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2010, and increasing
the MAP level from 10.3 MAP to 10.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2011, 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 10.3 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2010, and 10.8 MAP, beginning January 31, 2002, through December 31,
2015.
• Increasing the number of cargo flights from two (2) Class A ADD to a total of 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.
RAPr000sUWAUWl Wdd @Mum Rev 120602 dm 5 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
• Providing the passenger commercial carriers with the opportunity to use up to two (2) of
the Class A ADD cargo flights if there is no demand for these cargo flights by cargo air
carriers. •
• Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from
the current fourteen (14) loading bridges to twenty (20) loading bridges through
December 31, 2015, and providing up to two (2) hardstand positions for aircraft arriving
at the Airport.
•
CJ
R�rojedsU AlMNWeeneum Rew QOW2 eoo 6 Environmental Evaluation
•
is
E
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The County of Orange has prepared a separate environmental checklist for projects that have
been already evaluated in previously certified environmental documents. This allows the
County to take into consideration existing analysis prepared at an earlier stage of the project
and evaluate the adequacy of that document pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The checklist has been completed for the modified project description for the JWA
Settlement Agreement Amendment and is included as Appendix A of this Addendum. As
discussed in Section 1.9 of Final EIR 582, no impacts were anticipated on agricultural,
population and housing, geophysical. hydrology and drainage, light and glare, cultural
resources, recreation, mineral resources, schools and government services. This Addendum
provides a discussion of the topics discussed in Final EIR 582.
As mentioned in Section 1. the Addendum EIR does not need to reiterate the information
provided in the Final EIR. For each topical area, the Addendum identifies if there have been
any changes in conditions or impacts that would warrant the preparation of a Supplemental EIR
pursuant to Section 15162. The thresholds of significance are the same for each topical area as
those discussed in Final EIR 582. Similarly, the mitigation measures recommended for
adoption' would apply to the Project.
3.1 LAND USE
Final EIR 582 addressed the affect of the three project scenarios on surrounding land uses.
The only land use impacts of the three scenarios were indirect impacts associated with noise.
The noise levels are associated with the number of regulated flights and the MAP levels served
at the airport.
EIR 582 concluded that Scenario 2 would result in an additional 0.03- square mile of residential
land falling within the 65 to 70 CNEL contour, compared to current conditions. The increase in
the 65 CNEL contour in a residential area would be greater than 1.5 dB and therefore the
impact was identified as significant. The impacts associated with the Project would be slightly
less than those identified for Scenario 2, based on the updated fleet mix data and projections.
As discussed in Section 2.2, under the Project there would not be any new incompatible off -site
land uses that were not already present. There would be an increase area within the 65 CNEL
contour, but it would be only in commercial areas, which are not considered noise sensitive land
uses or small amount of residential that has been sound attenuated. For this reasons, the land
use impacts of the Project are less than significant.
There are no new land use impacts associated with the Project that have not already been
identified in Final EIR 582. The land use impacts are within the range of alternatives addressed
in Final EIR 582. None of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that
would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply for land use.
Since no new land use impacts were identified for the Project, no additional mitigation is
warranted.
When the Board of Supervisors took action on Final EIR 582 they determined that the mitigation measures
pertaining to construction would be deferred until such time as a construction project is proposed.
R \PMiedS WAV001WdeWum Rev 120002 da 7 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Final EIR 582 identified potential significant impacts to the circulation network under the three •
project scenarios when compared to existing conditions and to the No- Project Alternative. The
identified impacts are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by the airport
which, in turn, is related to airport MAP levels.
The number of vehicle trips generated by the Project would be comparable to the number of
trips generated under Scenario 2 because the number of aircraft flights and MAP levels would
be comparable, i.e., the number of vehicle trips generated under Scenario 2 is comparable to
those generated under the Project. Therefore, the traffic impacts associated with the Project
would be comparable to those identified in EIR 582 for Scenario 2.
In this regard, under Scenario 2 EIR 582 identified significant impacts at one arterial intersection
and four freeway ramps. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce these impacts
to levels below significant; however, with respect to the freeway ramp mitigation, since funding
by the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ") for the recommended improvements
is uncertain and the delay in mitigation implementation would result in a significant impact, the
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations identified a potential unavoidable,
significant traffic impact if the mitigation measures were not completed prior to project
implementation.
EIR 582 also disclosed that when compared to existing conditions, under Scenario 2 freeway
mainline segments SR -55 northbound and southbound, north of 1-405, are significantly
impacted. Both mainline segments are identified as congested under existing conditions, and
one of the mainline segments impacted operates at deficient levels of service (Level of Service
"F ") under existing conditions. Caltrans currently is constructing high occupancy vehicle •
( "HOV') lanes in the vicinity of the identified impacts; these Caltrans improvements will mitigate
to a level below significant any impacts to the freeway mainline segments anticipated to occur
under Scenario 2. Based on the EIR 582 traffic study, the SR -55 segments will not be
significantly impacted under Scenario 2 until 75 percent of the projected MAP level increase is
realized. Based on necessary infrastructure improvements, these MAP level increases will not
occur until after 2006. Current projections are that Caltrans's improvements will be completed in
February 2002, well in advance of 2006.
Since no new transportation /circulation impacts not previously disclosed in EIR 582 have been
identified under the Project, no additional analysis of mitigation is warranted.
Accordingly, the transportation and circulation impacts associated with the Project have been
fully addressed in Final EIR 582. No new impacts associated with transportation and circulation
would occur under the Project that have not been identified previously in Final EIR 582.
Additionally, none of the circumstances outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) that
would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR are applicable to the Project relative to
transportation and circulation impacts.
3.3 NOISE
In November 2001, Mestre -Greve Associates prepared a noise technical report, which was the
basis for the analysis in Final EIR 582. An update of the analysis, using updated fleet mix data
and projections, has been prepared by Mestre -Greve Assocates. The fleet mix and operations
data for the Project are provided in Table 3.3 -1. •
R1 roje St WAUWlW dendum Re•- 120602 dM 8 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
The CNEL contours depicted in Final EIR 582 were progressively larger for Scenario 1. 2, and 3
as the forecast number of air carrier operations for each of these scenarios increases.
• TABLE 3.3 -1
THE PROJECT FLEET MIX
•
Aircraft
Class A
Year 2006
Class AA Class E
Total
37362
17.35
15.05
32.41
737400
4.29
3.72
8.01
37500
10.15
8.80
18.9
37700
9.93
8.61
18.5
57PW
23.21
18.40
41.61
300
011
0.11
310
0.89
0.8
320
9.54
9.5
BEC58P
0.47
0.4
IT3
2.51
2.51
L601
18.95
18.9
NA441
0.06
0.0
NA500
1.37
1.3
DHC6
0.01
0.01
EMB120
6.00
6.0
ASEPF dept
223.40
223.4
ASEPF tg depts
170.75
170.7
IIB
0.13
0.1
IV
0.35
0.3
IA1125
0.85
0.8
LEAR25
0.73
0.7
LEAR35
0.73
0.7
MD83
2.00
2.0
37800
11.53
10.00
21.5
Subtotal:
515.29
0.00 64.60
579.8
Annual
ADD's:
211.65
Annual Ops:
423.318.0
Annual
MAP:
10.
In terms of total number of residences, existing Year 2000 contours included 411 homes in the
60 to 65 CNEL contours, and 111 homes inside the 65 CNEL contour. Scenario 1, 2, and 3
• include 490, 611, and 814 homes in the 60 to 65 CNEL contours, and 160, 192, and 231 homes
inside the 65 CNEL contour, respectively. Note that some of these homes have been insulated
in the Acoustical Insulation Program and many more will be completed before 2006. (The
R.WojWSUWA' 0WlWdend.m Rev - 120602.4 9 Environmental Evaluation
etc �i uuv V.m e'
� •Churches hes
Residential
Statute Miles
t
•
I +�
a
•
•
•
e e •
•
•
Exhibit
Year 2006 CNEL 60, 65, and 70, for The Project
John N u.ne Airport Settlement A_reement t'.Ctension FIR
b�,
Ci
ce)
Co
Z
x
0
LLI
CD
CD
C)
00
CO
>
ui
ern
0'
Co
U )
(.C)
CD
CD
C)
00
CO
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
Acoustical Insulation Program is under way, many homes are in design phase, and full program
completion is anticipated before 2006.)
The noise impacts of the Project were estimated by rerunning the FAA Integrated Noise Model, •
Version 6.0c, for the revised fleet mix and number of operations associated with the Project.
The 60. 65, and 70 CNEL contours for the Project are shown in Exhibit 3.3 -1. A close -up of the
65 CNEL contour in the vicinity of Santa Ana Heights, the only area where there are homes
within the 65 CNEL contour, is shown in Exhibit 3.3 -2. Also shown in Exhibit 3.3 -2 is the
65 CNEL contour from the 1985 Master Plan, for comparison purposes. As indicated, the
Project 65 CNEL contour is contained entirely within the 1985 Master Plan 65 CNEL contour.
TABLE 3.3 -2
CNEL AT SPECIFIC POINTS
Site
CY 2000
CNEL
SC1 (582)
CNEL
SC2 (582)
CNEL
Project
CNEL
SC1 (582)
CNEL
SC2 (582)
CNEL
Project
CNEL
1
66.2
67.3
67.8
67.6
1.1
1.6
1.4
2
66.1
67.0
67.6
67.3
0.9
1.5
1.2
3
64.7
65.6
66.1
65.9
0.9
1.4
1.2
4
58.5
59.1
59.7
59.3
0.6
1.2
0.8
5
58.4
59.0
59.6
59.1
0.6
1.2
0.7
6
59.2
59.9
60.5
60.2
0.7
1.3
1.0
7
57.0
57.5
58.1
57.6
0.5
1.1
0.6
8
68.1
69.6
70.1
70.5
1.5
2
2'4
(not residential use)
9
51.3
52.7
53.2
53.6
1.4
1.9
2'3
(outside 65 CNEL
10
57.0
58.2
58.7
59.3
1.2
1.7
2.3
(outside 65 CNEL)
OR
49.9
51.5
52.0
52.2
1.6
2.1
2.3
outside 65 CNEL
The elements of the Project that affect the noise analysis are as follows. The four cargo ADDS
allowed initially under the Project are in addition to the 85 air carrier passenger ADDS. For
purposes of the noise analysis, these four cargo ADDS were assumed to consist of the current
Fedex Airbus fleet, with the addition of Boeing 757 aircraft as used by UPS. The commuter
passenger allocation for the Project was increased to 550,000 passengers per year from the
current allocation of 400,000 per year. The number of Class E air carrier aircraft were
decreased to accommodate the increase in commuter Class E operations. The commuter
Class E operations were revised to include the current six turboprop departures to LAX and the
remaining commuter operations (19 ADD's) were included as commuter regional jet operations.
The number of commuter operations was adjusted to achieve 550,000 passengers per year and
the number of Class E operations were adjusted such that the total number of annual
passengers at JWA was 10.8 MAP.
1
Table 3.3 -2 shows the CNEL at the sensitive receptor locations for Calendar Year 2000,
Scenario 1 and 2 from Final EIR 582 and the Project. The difference in CNEL relative to
Calendar Year 2000 is also shown in Table 3.3 -2. Note that for all sensitive uses within the
65 CNEL contour, the noise increase associated with the Project is less than 1.5 dB, and is
therefore considered to be less than significant. Increases in the approach corridor are primarily
associated with the change in commuter Fleet mix that has already occurred since Calendar
Year 2000, that is the replacement of turboprop aircraft with regional jets in all commuter •
markets except for the LAX market.
R.Wrop��A=1O daendum RewQ0e02 dm 10 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
Table 3.3 -3 shows the Time Above data for Scenarios 1 and 2 from Final EIR 582 and the
Project.
• TABLE 3.3 -3
TA AT SPECIFIC POINTS
LJ
•
Site
TA65
SCI (582)
TA77
TA85
TA65
SC2 (582)
TA77
TA85
TA65
Project
TA77
TA85
1
60.6
22.7
5.4
66.8
25.1
5.4
65.7
24.7
5.7
2
61.2
22.2
4.7
67.3
24.6
4.7
65.1
24.1
4.9
3
52.8
19.0
1.2
57.8
20.7
1.4
58.1
21.4
1.3
4
37.3
3.8
0.0
41.0
3.9
0.0
41.2
3.6
0
5
51.7
0.5
0.0
57.1
0.7
0.0
55.7
0.5
0
6
44.9
3.0
0.0
49.7
3.2
0.0
49.7
3.1
0
7
40.2
1.0
0.0
44.5
1.2
0.0
44
0.6
0
8
43.9
18.4
6.4
48.5
20.4
7.3
46.6
19.9
7.4
9
4.0
0.7
0.0
4.5
0.8
0.0
4.6
0.9
0
10
16.5
1.3
0.3
18.5
1.4
0.3
19.7
1.4
0.4
OR
9.2
0.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
0.0
11.2
0
0
Table 3.3 -4 compares land use impacts for the 1985 Master Plan, Calendar Year 2000, Year
2006 No Project, Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and D from Final EIR 582 and the Project. The Project
shows a slight increase in the 60 CNEL contour area and a slight decrease in the 65 CNEL
contour area as compared to Scenario 2 from Final EIR 582.
R Trope sUWA0001Wddendum Rew120602.dm 11 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wavoe Airport EIR No. 582
TABLE 3.3-4
LAND USE COMPARISON YEAR 2000,
1985 MASTER PLAN AND YEAR 2006 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES •
•
R WrOMa u AQW1t dendum Re 120602A« 12 Environmental Evaluation
1985
Year2000
Year2006
Year 2006
Year2006
Year 2006
Year2006
Year2006
Master
No
Plan
Existin
Pro'ect
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Pro'ect
Scenario 3
Altemative D
Square Miles Within Contour:
- 0to65CNEL
Contour
4.13
1.82
1.93 2.17
2.36
2.45
2.62
2.72
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
1.22
0.75
0.78 0.89
0.94
0.93
1.07
1.20
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0.99
0.39
0.41 0.46
0.55
0.54
0.63
0.69
Square Miles Within Contour On Airport:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
-65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
0.07
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.15
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0.63
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.42
0.42
0.45
0.46
Square Miles of Residential:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
0.59
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.24
0.25
0.31
0.42
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.11
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Total Number of Residences:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
1548
411
405
490
611
634
814
110
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
315
111
109
160
192
190
231
300
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
13
Insulated Residences (2006)*:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
119
136
253
228
205
213
179
119
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
179
7
14
63
92
91
116
178
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Uninsulated Residences (2006)*:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
1429
275
152
262
406
421
635
982
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
136
104
95
97
100
99
115
122
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0
0
0
0
2
2
6
13
Number of Schools Inside Contour:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
4
2
2
2
4
4
6
6
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
- inside 70
CNEL Contour
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
R WrOMa u AQW1t dendum Re 120602A« 12 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport OR No. 582
These impacts have been fully addressed by the range of impacts for the scenarios addressed
Final EIR 582. No new noise impacts not already addressed in Final EIR 582 would occur with
adoption of the Project. None of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to noise.
3.4 AIR QUALITY
Final EIR 582 identified four potential significant air quality impacts for all three project
• scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3. Though not a construction project, facilities
improvements are a reasonably foreseeable activity stemming from project approval. The Final
EIR identified that construction emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
compounds (ROC), nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur oxides (SO,) and PM,b from fugitive dust
emissions may exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Operational emissions would also exceed established thresholds. The CO and NO, emissions
from aircraft operations would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Violation of 1 -hr NO, and 24 -hr
PM,b standards would increase, and would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Additionally, the
one -hour NO, and 24 -hour PM10 concentrations from vehicular emissions would exceed state
standards.
A health risk assessment was also completed. For all three scenarios the worst -case toxic air
contaminants (TAC)- related health effects would be an increase in lifetime risk of cancer and
acute health hazards.
The air emissions and health -risks from the project scenarios are associated with the aircraft
and vehicle emissions. Because the Project would have a comparable number of aircraft
operations and MAP levels and, therefore a comparable number of vehicle trips as Scenario 2,
the operational emissions associated with the Project would be similar to those associated with
Scenario 2. Thus, the Project would be expected to have air quality impacts comparable to
those identified in EIR 582 with respect to Scenario 2. These impacts were fully addressed in
Final EIR 582. Findings pertaining to significant unavoidable air quality and health risk impacts
were made and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted.
• Therefore, no new significant air quality impacts not previously identified in EIR 582 and
associated with the Project would occur. Additionally none of the conditions outlined in Section
R 1Pmje SUWAU001 �dde,,dum Rev - 120602.4. 13 Environmental Evaluation
1985
Year 2000
Year 2006
Year 2006
Year 2006
Year 2006
Year 2006
Year 2006
Master
No
Plan
Existing
Project
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Pro'ect
Scenario 3
Alternative D
Number of Hospitals Inside Contour:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
I
Contour
0
0 1 0 0
0
0 0
0
-65 to 70 CNEL
I
Contour
0
0 0 0
0
1 0. 0
0
- inside 70
I
CNEL Contour I
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
Number of Churches Inside Contour:
- 60 to 65 CNEL
Contour
1
3
2 3
3
3
2
2
- 65 to 70 CNEL
Contour
4
1
2 I 2
3
3
4
4
- inside 70 CNEL
Contour 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
All data basetl on completion of Acoustical Insulation Program poor to 2006. Note that Year 2000 numbers are basetl on homes insulated as of
June 20. 2001.
These impacts have been fully addressed by the range of impacts for the scenarios addressed
Final EIR 582. No new noise impacts not already addressed in Final EIR 582 would occur with
adoption of the Project. None of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to noise.
3.4 AIR QUALITY
Final EIR 582 identified four potential significant air quality impacts for all three project
• scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3. Though not a construction project, facilities
improvements are a reasonably foreseeable activity stemming from project approval. The Final
EIR identified that construction emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
compounds (ROC), nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur oxides (SO,) and PM,b from fugitive dust
emissions may exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Operational emissions would also exceed established thresholds. The CO and NO, emissions
from aircraft operations would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Violation of 1 -hr NO, and 24 -hr
PM,b standards would increase, and would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Additionally, the
one -hour NO, and 24 -hour PM10 concentrations from vehicular emissions would exceed state
standards.
A health risk assessment was also completed. For all three scenarios the worst -case toxic air
contaminants (TAC)- related health effects would be an increase in lifetime risk of cancer and
acute health hazards.
The air emissions and health -risks from the project scenarios are associated with the aircraft
and vehicle emissions. Because the Project would have a comparable number of aircraft
operations and MAP levels and, therefore a comparable number of vehicle trips as Scenario 2,
the operational emissions associated with the Project would be similar to those associated with
Scenario 2. Thus, the Project would be expected to have air quality impacts comparable to
those identified in EIR 582 with respect to Scenario 2. These impacts were fully addressed in
Final EIR 582. Findings pertaining to significant unavoidable air quality and health risk impacts
were made and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted.
• Therefore, no new significant air quality impacts not previously identified in EIR 582 and
associated with the Project would occur. Additionally none of the conditions outlined in Section
R 1Pmje SUWAU001 �dde,,dum Rev - 120602.4. 13 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to
air quality impacts. Since no new air quality impacts were identified for the Project, no
additional mitigation analysis is warranted. •
3.5 WATER QUALITY
Final EIR 582 documented that there would not be any significant water quality impacts
associated with any of the three project scenarios. Although the increased number of flights
would result in an increase in the amount of petrochemicals in the runoff associated with the
aircraft and automobiles, as a result of the efforts taken by JWA to comply with its NPDES
permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), water quality impacts under each
of the three project scenarios would be less than significant. Existing facilities, such as the oil -
water separators and petro - packs, would be able to accommodate the increased flow from the
airport.
The potential water quality impacts of the Project would be comparable to those impacts
associated with Scenario 2 because the number of aircraft operations and vehicles would be
comparable to the range addressed in the Final EIR under this scenario. As addressed in Final
EIR 582, the NPDES Permit for JWA activities sets forth requirements to identify potential
sources of storm water degradation at JWA, and identify and implement work practices and
management procedures to minimize impact to storm water. These impacts have been fully
addressed in Final EIR 582.
Therefore, no new significant water quality impacts not previously identified in EIR 582 and
associated with the Project would occur. Existing programs and facilities would serve to reduce
the potential water quality impacts to less than significant. None of the conditions outlined in
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR •
apply to water quality. Since no new water quality impacts were identified for the Project, no
additional mitigation is warranted.
3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Final EIR 582 did not identify any biological impacts associated with any of the three project
scenarios. There would be no direct impacts on biotic resources. Final EIR 582 recognized that
there would be an increase in the noise levels over the Upper Newport Bay; however, they
contours for all three scenarios would be less than those assumed for the 1985 Master Plan.
Accordingly, the Project would not have any significant impacts on biotic resources because the
noise contours associated with the Project are within the range of the contours addressed in
Final EIR 582. Therefore, the biotic impacts have been fully addressed in Final EIR 582. None
of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the
preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to biological resources impacts. Additionally, because
no new impacts were identified for the Project, no additional mitigation analysis is warranted.
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Final EIR 582 found that none of the project scenarios would result in a significant impact on
public services and utilities. The impacts of the Project on public services and utilities is
comparable to Scenario 2 because it is proposed to have the same number of regulated Flights
and serve the same MAP. EIR 582 determined that sufficient capacity exists or can be provided
for fire fighting, police protection services, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, and •
water under all project scenarios.
RWro) Ud AVON dEendum Rev120602 d= 14 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
For sewer services, JWA coordinated with the applicable Sanitation District to ensure sufficient
• capacity for the 10.24 MAP originally planned in the Master Plan. A "will serve" letter has been
provided by the Sanitation District for that level of service. As discussed in Final EIR 582,
development of facilities for growth over the 10.24 MAP would require further coordination with
the Sanitation District and issuance of a new 'will serve letter.
Therefore, no new significant impacts to public services and utilities not previously identified in
EIR 582 would be associated with the Project. Additionally, none of the conditions outlined in
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR
apply to public services and utilities impacts. Since no new impacts to public services and
utilities were identified for the Project, no additional mitigation analysis is warranted.
3.8 AESTHETICS
Final EIR 582 determined that there would be no significant visual impacts associated with any
of the project scenarios. The improvements would not be visible from view sensitive uses. Any
facilities improvements that may be constructed would be consistent with the existing style and
character of existing structures on the airport; therefore, there would be no impact on the
community character or visual characteristics of the site. Implementation of the Project would
have visual impacts similar to, but slightly less than Scenario 3. Scenario 3 proposed up to
twenty-four (24) passenger - loading gates. The Project would provide up to twenty (20) gates.
While it is likely that an auxiliary terminal building may be required under the Project, Final EIR
582 concluded that the terminal expansion and new parking structures for Scenario 3 would be
similar in style and character to current facilities. The view of JWA would continue to be highly
urban in nature, with views consisting of expanded, but similar facilities. These same
conclusions would apply to the Project.
• Therefore, no new significant impacts to aesthetic impacts not previously identified in EIR 582
would be associated with the Project. Additionally, none of the conditions outlined in Section
15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to
aesthetics. Since no new aesthetic impacts were identified, no additional analysis of mitigation
measures are warranted.
3.9 PUBLIC SAFETY
Final EIR 582 determined, based on historical accident information and JWA's current and
continued future adherence to all federal, state, and local safety standards and guidelines, the
likelihood of safety impacts under each of the project scenarios is less than significant for the
following areas:
• Accident Likelihood
• Bird Strike Risk
• Safety of Runway, Runway Safety Areas, and Runway Protection Zones
• Emergency Procedures for Aircraft Operations
• Airport Security
The Project would be required to follow all the same requirements as the project scenarios
evaluated in Final EIR 582. There would not be a change in operational procedures, aircraft
used, or other factors that would potentially influence safety. Accordingly, there would be no
public safety impacts associated with the Project.
• Therefore, no significant public safety impacts not previously identified in EIR 582 would be
associated with the Project. Additionally, none of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the
R %Probe WWAU001V endum Rea120602 doc 15 Environmental Evaluation
Addendum to John Wayne Airport EIR No. 582
CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to public safety.
Since no new public safety impacts were identified, no additional analysis of mitigation
measures is warranted. •
3.10 HAZARDOUS WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL USE
Final EIR 582 determined that each of the project scenarios would result in an increase in
fueling activities and the associated increase in the likelihood of a fuel spill. However, the
handling of any fuel spills would follow the adopted procedures for handling fuel spills. No other
activities would occur that would result in substantial hazardous material storage or use, or
hazardous waste generation beyond what is currently provided for at JWA. Thus, none of the
project scenarios would result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials or
waste. The activities permitted by the Project would be comparable to the project scenarios.
Existing programs, procedures, and regulations adequately provide for the safe handling of
hazardous materials. The Project would be required to handle hazardous materials in full
compliance with applicable codes and obtain the necessary permits. Consequently, the Project
would not result in significant hazardous materials or waste impacts.
No impacts from hazardous materials and hazardous waste would be associated with the
Project that was not addressed in Final EIR 582. None of the conditions outlined in
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR
apply to this topic. Since the Project would not result in any new impacts, no additional
mitigation measures are warranted.
3.11 RISK OF UPSET
Final EIR 582 evaluated the potential impacts associated with fuel transport, delivery, and •
storage activities and found no significant impact for any of the three project scenarios. The
Project would have comparable fuel usage to Scenario 2 because each would serve 10.8 MAP
and have a comparable number of aircraft activity. Current state and federal regulations apply
to the transport, handling, and storage of jet fuel. These regulations provide inherent
safeguards that preclude or reduce the likelihood of an occurrence or severity of jet fuel
transport accidents. For each of the project scenarios, an accident potential with major to
catastrophic severity was deemed to have an extremely low /very unlikely probability of
occurrence. As a result, the use and storage of jet fuel at the JWA site under each of the
project scenarios was deemed not to result in a significant adverse impact to public health and
safety under risk of upset conditions. The characteristics of the Project are substantially similar
to the project scenarios discussed in Final EIR 582. Because the same operational procedures
would apply to the Project, there would be no significant impacts associated with risk of upset
not previously identified in EIR 582.
Additionally, none of the conditions outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that
would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR apply to risk of upset impacts. The Project
would not result in any additional impacts; therefore, no additional mitigation analysis is
warranted.
•
R w�suwnuWIWdendum Re.120602 = 16 Environmental Evaluation
Wayne Airport EIR No, 582
SECTION 4
• CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis contained in Section 3, the County of Orange has determined that this
Addendum to Final EIR 582, when considered together with Final EIR 582, is the appropriate
documentation for the Project, as outlined in the JWA Settlement Agreement Amendment. In
reviewing the Project, none of the situations described in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR would apply. This Addendum
provides the documentation regarding potential changes to the project, the environment in
which it is being implemented, and any new information not previously available.
f. J
•
RWoje=UWAU001W dmdum Rev120602.dw 17
J�yt
C
^_
y�lFOtL
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects with Previously Certified /Approved Environmental
Documents:
Environmental Document EIR, Number. Project Number
I he tot Iowxn@ checklist takes Into consideration the preparation of an onclronmcntal document prepared at an earlier
ctaee of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section
15162 of the California EmIronmental Quality Act 10EQAI Guidelines.
Page I Preaioustr Certt(ed/Approsmd
Environmental Document Checklist
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOI'RC'ES:
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
1.
LAND USE & PLANNING, V% Wild the project:
a. Cnnflat w nhat nenl plan desumauun at tonne'
❑
❑
n. ('ontlrn %ub applicable en. annnenaI plans or r,buve .a accnoe, inn mnsdmuon u,er the
❑
❑
project'
Dinar or L,de the ph-,ad am a:ntert •+r .n emah1 ,heJ ,..mmunin a e low naon<
11
El
mmom.''
J. ( onOtct an ini acorn. existing or plannN land uses
❑
❑
2.
4GRICU'LTURE. would project:
( omen Farmlands listed v Pnme I'e:qua ..r of aamw ide Irrmonarthe. a, shown rn
❑
El
,he State farmland Mapp tie and Alonnonne Pm_'am m nor- atatCUlttual Use'
hi In,nl,e other changes in the exists.. cnoonmern wuLh. Jut to their Iwauun ar nature
El
11
ersw of Farmland w non- aultual use
,ond result to com n dum
3.
POPULATION & HOUSING. vS'ould project:
v Cu dulanvely exceed adopted reemral or local population projections'
❑
❑
hi Induce substantial growth in an area direct)% or ndrreal, (Inumeh pmmct in an unde,eluped
El
1:1
•
or extension of major nfastructore '
i Dtsplzee extsung housme anectne a subaanoul number .,1 people'
❑
❑
4.
GEOPHYSICAL. would project result in or expose people to impacts
invohina:
.0 t oval fault mature'
❑
❑
xermut, .mood shaknne er iwunawm
❑
❑
. Ha,e suds nwa0abie of adeouatel, suprs,mnu the nse yr -epic tanks or alternau,e warm
❑
1:1
water disposal svvems where rowers are ten a,adahle For me Jrsposal ot'waae water'
Ji Landslides or rmadsbdes"
❑
❑
u Emsron clamees in topoeaph% or unstable soil condruoro nom exca,auon. eradinc or till'
❑
❑
f. Subsidence of the land"
❑
❑
_� Fxpansr,e sml,'
❑
❑
at Unique eeoloem or physical features'
❑
❑
5.
HYDROLOGY &DRAINAGE. would the project.
ai substantially alter the exnsune damage panem of the site or area. ouludine the alteration of
'he coume of a stream or mer in manner w huh would result in
t subsanml emsron or sdauon on- or on -sae°
❑
❑
in a substantial mco,ase to the ate or amount of surface onxdf in manner which would
L1
1:1
result in flooding on- or OfT sue"
hi ('ream or coambue mown water which would exceed the capaca, of existing or planned
❑
❑
aormwa et drainage systems or pm,rde substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff^
.' Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
❑
❑
now s'
Jr Expose People or structures to a sour icant nsk of Ins injury or death m,okng floodme
❑
❑
•
including flooding as a result of the failure of a le,ee or dam or inundation b, cache
tsunatn. or mudflow°
6.
WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Page I Preaioustr Certt(ed/Approsmd
Environmental Document Checklist
•
•
•
No Substantial
New
More
Change from
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES:
Significant
Severe
Previous
Impacts
Impacts
Analysis
a)I,olate anvc ater quala>sundara.. or wa.rc maharge rcgmremenn'
❑
❑
❑
bl Substantially deplete urounduater.+uppties Or menere.. eh around�e.ur ree hare: ..:, h that
❑
❑
❑
there would be a net deficit in agwter souime or a io..enne m a 6 c,d rmmawacr urw
I-, ell
n Otherwise substantial 1. degrade.. Ater qua In
❑
❑
❑
7.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result in:
❑
❑
a) Increased sehe le trips or Ira t fv: con zest ion be. end adopted oohne.: and of fumcz.ts'
b) Exceed, either mm, it ua 11, or cumwam el, a le, el of .e,,,e ,tandaid craft n, b, iris
❑
❑
county congestion management agenc. for designated roads or htchwa—'
cl Safety hazards Rom design features rce sharp curses or cancerous mnrsctltrna or
❑
❑
ircompatible uses le g farm equipment c'
dl Inadequate emergency access or access to nearb. use:'
❑
❑
III Insufficient parkmg capacity on -site or off »te'
❑
❑
fl Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or btc.chsis'
❑
❑
g) Curries with adopted policies supponme altername um.00neuou ieg bun turnout.
❑
❑
bncvcle racks)"
h) Ran. waterbome or air traffic impacts'
❑
❑
I) Change in air tmffc panems. includmu either an mcrea,e in traffic levels or a cbmge m
❑
El
location that results m substantial sates. risks"
8.
AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Exceed anc SCAQMD standard or contribute to air quahro detenomtion beyond projections
❑
❑
of SCAQMD°
❑
❑
III Expose sensitive population groups to pollutants in encess of acceptable levels"
❑
❑
cl Alter au movement, moisture, or temperature. or cause any chan,_e in climate'
d) Cream objectionable odors afPectme a substantial number of people
❑
❑
9.
NOISE. Would the project:
a) Increase existing noise levels`
❑
❑
III Erpow people to noise levels erceedmg adopted Count. tandards"
❑
❑
cl If located within an ampon land use plan or. where such plan has not been adopted. within
❑
❑
two miles of a public airport or public use ampon crpose people resichn, or working u the
proven area to excessive noise levels'
10.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project impact:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats Imcludmg but not limited to plants.
❑
❑
fish, insects. animals and birds
b) Locallydesigmaed species (e a heritage trees)°
❑
❑
III Locally designated natuml communit¢s le a oak forest. e4sstal habitat ctc t'
❑
❑
III Weiland habitat (e g. marsh riparan and >emal pool)"
❑
❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or mgmtion condors '
❑
❑
D Adoptedorproposedconser,ationplain and policies le a Natural Community Censertailon
❑
❑
Plan or Resource Management Plan I°
11.
AESTHETICS. Would the project.
al Affect a scenic vista or view open to the public"
❑
❑
b) Affect a designated scenic highway'
❑
❑
cl Substantially degrade the evsung .tsual character or quahty of the site and its
El
El
surroundings?
III Cream light or glare beyond the physical limits of the project site"
❑
❑
12.
CULTURALISCIENTIFIC RESOURCES, Would the project:
al Disturb archaeo or paleo resources"
❑
❑
b) Affect historical resources'
❑
❑
III Have the potential to cause a physical chance which would affect unique ethnic cultural
❑
E]
values°
Page Z
Previously Certified /Approved
Environmental
Document Checklist
•
•
•
Page 3 Previously Certified /Approved
Environmental Document Checklist
No Substantial
New
More
Change from
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SM RCES:
Significant
Severe
Previous
Impacts
Impacts
.analysis
•
13. RECRE.4TIOIN. NN ould project:
i Inuo se the use at...co tic nacmb,nhund .md re_u nr "A' :.r other "tc:anenzi taetiu:"
11
11
2
:ch tat h a:nvamtal ph"x,ii derer.nrmton nl :rte :acda% x uld corm ,, r: acrlaamd'
Include ...national la,aon,s ar na:ue the .:nn:uu. urn .n espansem .,. .. rauenai
❑
❑
!uedurcs w inch n'-hi haze an.,e.ar v pir—tai tire' I,.o Nbe en.•r,nmenl
❑
❑
.'•l pullet with adorned rf.rauer.r. mlans •. r p rote,'
14. MINERAL RESOURCES. NNould the project:
a Re cult to the loss of a, a tland lt, : f a kn,.wn on neral remunc :hat mould be oaf ,..lac m the
❑
El
and the revdenr<nt the ua::'
:. Result to the loss 11 a,aliabtbt..•i a Peall: onponam mmerai r.stlmce rec„cr. vie
❑
❑
ddneamd on a local central plan. o,cut, plan :•r. vhs and use clan'
15. HAZARDS. Would the project:
n l'reare a hazard m the puhhe nr the en:irnnmcnr rhnoeh the routine tianspon uae or
❑
❑
dupoeal of hazardous ms,,,W4'
or Create a hazard to the publie or the MIAMment uunuun rea:onabk for: +eeable upset and
❑
❑
accident emdmmnu tmoh Inc the release of haeard,, . matenuh into the emaenmem'
ei hxpovme of people to ev.tme sources of health h.izlyde'
❑
❑
L rer a proteet located wnhtn an argon land we ci.m of .nere .itch plan ha; not been
❑
❑
adopted. wuhm mo miles ofa public anoen.v public rue airport. would the prmeet result
in a safely hazard for people res'.dme •n werkmu m the proiecr area'
et For a mmeer wuhm ncc ,¢tnu, of pn'.ate msrm :t,knid the protect result in a <afcn
❑
❑
hazard :of people rcvdm_ or wpd.me in the protect area
T) Impair implementation of or plr.etealk .mertcre w nh an adopted emeruenc, naponse pun
❑
❑
nr emereeue} c, aeuxuon plan'
gl Expose people or eimetures to a uemfieam nek or Ins. mince or death tnvohme wddland
❑
❑
fires. meludmg where •,ildlands are adtacrnt to urbanized areas or where restdeneer are
t mcmuxed w nh wfldlods'
•
16. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would project result in need(s) for
new /altered government facilitiesiservices in:
at Fire protection'
❑
❑
bt Police protection
❑
❑
u Schools'
❑
❑
d. %farntcruncc u, ^, uhpc tacJmc; nJudme nods'
❑
❑
et Other eoscmmear sen tees
❑
❑
17. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. would project result in needs for
new or substantial alterations in:
at Power or naturalea.'
❑
❑
lit Communteaitons systcros'
❑
❑
v Local m regional water treatment or distribution taedtues'
❑
❑
dl Sewer or sepue tanks'
❑
❑
el Solid waste disposal'
❑
❑
MANDATORY FINDINGS
al Does the projeet ha,e the potential to dzerade the quality of the em .moment. substanualk reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self susiatmne levels, threaten 10
El
El
eliminate a plant of animal eommunnv. reduce the number or resmet the ranee of a rare or
endangered plant or animal. or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory'
bi Does the projeet ha,e the potential to aehie,e the them term emnonmental goals to the
❑
❑
dlsadvamae_e of the lone -tern environmental coals'
el Does the project have possible emrontnemzl effeets which are mdutdually limited but
❑
❑
e damlauvely emorderable^ I "eumulanvely eoneidemhle" mean, that the merememal effeets ofan
individual project arc considerable when stewed to eonneetion with the effeen of past projects, the
•
effeets of other eurrent projeets. and the effeets of probable future pioneers i
J Does project ha,e emrnnmental effeets whteh wdl enure substantial ad,crse elf ets on human
❑
❑
banes, either drecrf, or indrreedv
Page 3 Previously Certified /Approved
Environmental Document Checklist
DETERMINATION:
Based upon me e% Telenet, in Twin of the whole recom dontmcnted in the attached em vonmentaI check l ut planation c:ted incorporations and
attachments. I rind that the proposed prong •
Has pre%iously been anal zed as pan of an earner CEO k documem Tw huh either mnmated the project or adopted impacts pursuant to findmasi ❑
adopted cemfied pursuant to State and Counts CEO k Gmdci'.ne> i':c proposed protect is a component of the w hole action anahred m the
ores Torah adopted cemfied CEQ k document
Has pre%iously been analvved as pan of an earlier (C EOA doc'amem Twh¢h either mitigated the project or adopted impacts pursuant to findmesl x
adopted cent lied pursuant to State and C cure % C E 0 k Guidelines alinor additions andd'or clarifications are needed to make the pre%Tous
documentation adequate to co%er the project which are documented in this addendum to the earn" C EQA document IC EQA Il s i 641
Has pre%iousl% been analyzed as panel an earlier CEQ k document Twhlch either muleaed me project or adopted impacts pursuant to fndmesi
adoptecicem(ted pursuant m State and Count% C EQ k Gmddmcs Howe %er there is important new information and or substantial changes We
occurred regmrmg the preparauonof an additional CEQA document TSD or EBj pursuant to CEQ k Guidelines aections IS162 throueh L 161.
Signature'
Alan Murphy
John Wavne Almon
Eelephone:(940) ?i_-s_70
NOTE: 411 referenced and.0r osoipormed documents nom, he re+iewed hr appointment onh at die Corona, of Orange Planning d
Development Sen'fces Department. 3()O .V Fim%er-Saver lama ,Ana Californm unless othenrae specified An appointment can be made by
contactnq tine CEO.4 Contact Person identified aho%e
•
C i
• SUPPLEMENTAL CEQA FINDINGS FOR MODIFIED AMENDMENTS
TO JOAN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A. Background and Chronology
In August 2000, the Newport Beach City Council ( "Council ") asked the Orange County Board of
Supervisors (`Board ") to consider an extension of the term of the Stipulation filed by the City,
County, SPON and AWG in County of Orange v. Air California, et al.; City of Newport Beach v.
County of Orange et al.. U.S. District Court (Central Dist.) Case No. CV 851542 TJH (MCx)
( "John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement Agreement "). The City and the
County subsequently entered into a cooperative agreement for the preparation of an
environmental impact report (EIR 582) to analyze the environmental impacts of three separate
potential scenarios for an amendment extending the Settlement Agreement and modifying
additional terms.
On June 25, 2002, the Board certified EIR 582 as adequate and complete under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted findings and a statement of overriding
considerations and authorized the County Counsel and Special Counsel to execute modifications
to the Settlement Agreement that were generally consistent with Scenario 1 in EIR 582. On June
25, 2002, the Council also adopted findings and a statement of overriding considerations and
authorized the City Attorney to execute amendments to the Settlement Agreement consistent
• with those approved by the Board. The parties deferred filing the Settlement Agreement
amendments with the District Court pending discussions with the FAA and the airlines.
Beginning in July 2002, representatives of the parties (primarily the County) discussed the
Settlement Agreement amendments with the FAA and the airlines serving, or wishing to serve at
JWA. These discussions ultimately resulted in a tentative understanding pursuant to which the
parties agreed to approve modifications to the Settlement Agreement amendments on condition
that FAA, through the Office of the Chief Counsel, issue an opinion that the Settlement
Agreement amendments are permitted by and consistent with all federal law for which the FAA
has enforcement responsibility.
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Orange County has now prepared an Addendum
to EIR 582 (Addendum). The purpose of the Addendum is to evaluate if the modifications to the
Settlement Agreement amendments would give rise to new or more severe environmental
impacts than disclosed in EIR 582. The Addendum concludes that EIR 582 fully evaluates the
impacts of the modifications to the Settlement Agreement amendments and that CEQA or the
CEQA Guidelines do not require any additional environmental documentation.
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council is
required to, and hereby does, undertake an independent review of the environmental
documentation prepared by Orange County on the proposed modified amendments to the
Settlement Agreement. The Council previously, in June 2002, conducted an independent review
of EIR 582 and the related documentation, and made the findings required under CEQA and the
• CEQA Guidelines. These additional findings are intended to supplement the Council's June
-XE I B I T A
2002 findings, and are focused primarily on the proposed modifications to the Settlement •
Agreement amendments and on the Addendum.
B. Supplemental CEQA Findings
Based upon information in Section A and the Council's independent review of the Addendum,
EIR 582, and the other documents in the administrative record such as the additional staff reports
and attachments prepared for the December 10, 2002 meetings of the Board and the Council, the
Council makes the following findings (for convenience the modifications to the Settlement
Agreement amendments are referred to as the "Project ").
1. Modifications to Amendments to Settlement Agreement
The Project currently under consideration is set forth in Report from the JWA Settlement
Agreement Extension Committee and by this reference the Project description is incorporated in
these Findings. In summary, the Project would modify the Settlement Agreement Amendments
approved in June 2002 to allow a phased increase of 1 million annual passengers (from 9.8 in
2003 to 10.3 in 2003 and 10.8 in 2011) and the construction of 2 additional passenger loading
bridges (for a total of 20). The Project would also slightly modify the provisions relative to
hardstanding and would allow up to two cargo flights to be allocated to passenger carriers if
there was insufficient demand for four cargo operations. These modifications are similar to
provisions of Scenario 2 in EIR 582.
2. No Further EIR is Required •
When a project is modified, a responsible agency, before taking discretionary action to
approve it, must review the environmental documentation to ascertain whether further
environmental review is required. Under CEQA "substantial changes" in a project would trigger
the need for a subsequent EIR if they would "require major revisions of the environmental
impact report." (Pub. Res. Code section 21166(a).) The need for such EIR revisions following
project revisions could arise "due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects." (CEQA
Guidelines sec. 15162(a)(1).)
Based on the analysis in the Addendum, in conjunction with EIR 582, the remaining
documents included in the administrative record as of June 2002, and the additional staff reports
and attachments prepared for the December 10, 2002 meetings of the Board and the Council, the
Council has determined, based on the substantial evidence before it, that the environmental
impacts that will be caused by the modifications Settlement Agreement amendments have been
identified and analyzed in EIR 582. Therefore no major revisions to EIR 582 are required to
analyze the impacts of the Project and no further environmental documentation is required.
3. Findings Regarding Impacts of The Project
The Council made complete CEQA Findings in taking its June 26, 2002 action. In
approving the modifications to the amendments to the Settlement Agreement, the City hereby •
• incorporates by this reference its earlier CEQA Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations for FEIR 582 ( "June 2002 Findings "). In addition, the
Council makes the following Supplemental Findings regarding the modifications to the
amendments, as part of its action on the Project.
a. Project Description:
The Project Description, section 2.2 of the June 2002 Findings, is modified by deleting the third
bullet point describing the MAP limitations and inserting the following:
"Increasing the million annual passenger ( "MAP ") level served at JWA from the current
8.4 MAP to 10.3 MAP beginning on January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2009, and
increasing to 10.8 MAP beginning on January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2015."
The Project Description, section 2.2 of the June 2002 Findings, is modified by deleting the sixth
bullet point describing the passenger loading bridges and inserting the following:
"Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at JWA from
the current fourteen (14) loading bridges to twenty (20) loading bridges through
December 31, 2015, and providing up to two (2) hardstand positions for aircraft arriving
at the airport."
• b. Significant Effects That Cannot Be Mitigated To Below the Level of
Significance:
The air quality impacts of the Project were analyzed in EIR 582 under Scenario 2. As set forth
in section 3.1 of the June 2002 Findings, Scenario 1 would have significant adverse air quality
impacts that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance. Similarly, the Project will
have significant air quality impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance.
The Council finds that the County has incorporated mitigation measures as listed in the June
2002 Findings. The Council finds that 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
measure within its jurisdiction for this project.
The toxic air contaminant impacts of the Project were analyzed in EIR 582 under Scenario 2.
As set forth in section 3.2 of the June 2002 Findings, Scenario 1 would have significant adverse
air quality impacts that could not be mitigated to below a level of significance. Similarly, the
Project will have significant toxic air contaminant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a
level of significance. The County adopted mitigation measures. The Council finds that the
mitigation measures are outside of the City's jurisdiction and the City has not identified any
feasible toxic air contaminant mitigation measure within its jurisdiction for this Project.
The transportation and circulation impacts of the Project were analyzed in EIR 582 under
Scenario 2. As set forth in section 3.3 of the June 2002 Findings, Scenario 1 would have
• significant adverse traffic impacts at four freeway ramps. Although mitigation was identified,
funding was not certain so that the Council found the impact was significant and unavoidable. •
Similarly, The Project will have significant impacts at the same four freeway ramps, and because
of the uncertainty of mitigation funding these are found to be unavoidable. The County adopted
mitigation. The Council finds that the freeway ramp mitigation is outside the City's jurisdiction
and the City has not identified any feasible freeway ramp mitigation within its jurisdiction for
this Project.
c. Effects Determined to Be Mitigated To Below A Level of Significance:
The transportation impacts of the Project were analyzed in EIR 582 under Scenario 2. As set
forth in section 4.1 of the June 2002 Findings, Scenario 1 would have significant traffic impacts
at one arterial intersection that would be mitigated. Similarly, the Project will significantly affect
the identified intersection and the identified mitigation measure (a third turn lane) will reduce the
impact to below a level of significance. The measure is outside the jurisdiction of the City and
the City has identified no additional feasible mitigation within its jurisdiction.
An additional transportation impact for the Project, not identified for Scenario 1, is that
freeway mainline segments would be affected. As set forth in EIR 582, under traffic levels
expected under Scenario 2, certain freeway mainline segments would experience significant
congestion. Caltrans is currently constructing HOV lanes at the affected locations; these
Caltrans improvements will reduce the impacts of The Project on freeway mainline traffic to less
than significant levels. Therefore, measures under Caltrans' jurisdiction will mitigate this
impact, resulting in a finding that the Project will not have a significant impact on the freeway
mainline segments. The freeway measures are outside the City's jurisdiction and the City has •
identified no additional feasible mitigation for this impact within its jurisdiction.
d. Effects Determined Not to Be Significant
In the areas of water quality, biological resources, public services and utilities, aesthetics,
public health and safety, hazardous waste and hazardous materials use, and risk of upset,
EIR 582 adequately covered the impacts of the Project within its analysis of Scenario 2. As in its
June 2002 Findings, the Council determines based on EIR 582 and the Addendum that The
Project will have no significant impact on these areas.
With regard to noise, the Addendum and related materials contain an updated assessment of the
existing and projected fleet mix for aircraft using JWA. The City has reviewed the revised data
and projections and has determined that they reflect better than the original assumptions used in
EIR 582 the actual operations, and operations reasonably anticipated at JWA. Based on the
analysis in EIR 582 and the Addendum, including the revised fleet mix projections and the
operations limits under the Project, the Council finds that the Project will not have significant
noise impacts. For all sensitive uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour, the noise increase
associated with The Project is less than 1.5 dB CNEL.
With regard to land use, the Council finds that there would be no adverse land use impact
because of increased noise, based on the information and analysis in the Addendum as discussed
•
• above. Based on EIR 582, the Addendum and related materials, there are no other significant
land use impacts associated with the Project.
4. Feasibility of Alternatives
Because the Project will have some significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts, the Council must make findings on the feasibility of environmentally superior
alternatives. In approving the Project, the Council will be opting not to adopt Scenario 1, despite
its somewhat reduce environmental impacts. Nonetheless, based on a careful and independent
review of the EIR and Addendum, the Council has determined that adoption of the Project will
result in no new adverse environmental impact not previously identified for Scenario 1.
Although the Project, in comparison to Scenario 1, causes incremental increases in the severity
of certain impacts, the Council has determined that Scenario 1 is not a feasible alternative.
Analysis and discussion with affected parties including FAA and incumbent and potential
airlines serving JWA has led the City to conclude that the smaller increases in operations
allowed under Scenario 1 were insufficiently responsive to Orange County's air transportation
needs. In addition, Scenario 1 was revealed to provide an inadequate basis for a long -term
agreement that could avoid litigation and attendant uncertainties. The Project has the important
advantage of involving an FAA letter assuring the parties that the amended Agreement conforms
to federal law. This benefit, not available with Scenario 1, leads the Council to find that strict
conformance with Scenario 1 is not a feasible alternative to the Project at this time.
• The Council incorporates by reference its earlier findings regarding the feasibility of
other alternatives, at section 7 of its June 2002 Findings.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Council reiterates its list of Overriding Considerations set forth in section 8.2 of the
June 2002 Findings. In addition, the Council has identified the following benefits of The Project
These benefits support the Council's finding that the Project is of sufficient benefit to the people
of the City of Newport Beach to be acceptable despite the adverse and unavoidable impacts
identified.
Obtaining a letter from FAA assuring the City that the FAA considers the
Project to be consistent with ANCA and other relevant provisions of federal
law will give the City improved certainty for the long term.
9. Under Scenario 1 and based on the provisions of EIR 582, the County would
be able to maintain 18 gates "remain over night" (RON) positions and 13 non-
gated positions. The 2 additional passenger loading bridges will displace 4
RON positions and only one of the displace RON positions can be restored
consistent with the information contained in EIR 582 relative to the area
available for RON positions. Accordingly, the modifications to the Settlement
Agreement amendments will actually reduce RON positions and will not result
• in any increase in peak hour (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) positions.
10. The phased increase in passengers will enable the County to encourage the use •
of regional jets which are substantially quieter than Class A operations and
even quieter than Class E operations.
11. The phased increase in passengers will enable the County to establish
permanent Class E allocations and will eliminate the potential for reduction in
Class E operations in the future if load factors increase or air carvers transition
to larger aircraft.
L�
•
a
JI�U
orange County. California
Alan L Murphy
Airport Director
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA
92626 -4608
949152.5171
52.5178 fax
www.ocaicrom
ns,
December 3, 2002
David G. Leitch
Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
AGC 200
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: John Wayne Airport: County of Orange Request for Legal
Opinion Regarding Amendments to a 1985 "Settlement
Agreement "Relating to Aircraft Operations at SNA
Dear Mr. Leitch:
The County of Orange, California ( "County's is the owner and operator of John
Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ( "JWA" or "the airport'). The County intends
to implement certain modifications to a pre - existing "settlement agreement" which
was originally entered into in 1985and included various noise based restrictions and
regulations on aircraft operations at JWA. On June 25, 2002, the parties to that
agreement took action agreeing to settlement agreement modifications that authorized
increases in operational capacity at JWA beginning in 2003 (the "settlement
amendment'). The settlement amendment also permits important capacity increases
and airport facilities improvements which would allow and support additional
operational opportunities to the airlines, permitting them to provide additional and
enhanced service to the air traveling public. The amendment would have no effect on
airport or aircraft safety. Further, in recent discussions between the County and
airlines serving (or interested in serving) JWA, the airlines have requested certain
capacity opportunities beyond those authorized by the parties on June 25, 2002. As a
result, the settling parties are currently scheduled to consider approving next Tuesday,
December 10, 2002, modifications to the settlement amendment which wc!;1d be
substantially responsive to those requests, subject to our receipt of the opinion from
FAA requested by this letter.
The 1985 settlement agreement was embodied in a federal court stipulation for
judgment, and the amendments to the settlement agreement would be similarly
reflected in a filed stipulation that, with the consent of the federal court, would modify
the original 1985 judgment permitting the additional operational capacity and
improvements contemplated by the settlement amendment. We have enclosed with
this letter a draft of the amended stipulation which reflects not only the amendments
authorized by the actions of the parties on June 25, 2002, but which also reflects the
additional capacity requested by the airlines, which the parties are prepared to
authorize once we have received the requested concurring opinion from FAA.
David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration •
December 3, 2002
Page 2
REQUESTED OPPIION
In order to obtain the consent of the other settling parties to the proposed modifications to the
settlement amendment, the County requests an opinion of the Chief Counsel of FAA concurring
in the following points:
Within the meaning of, and for all purposes related to Section 9304 of ANI CA, the
Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. § 47524) and Section 161.3(a)
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 161.3(a)), the 1985 Settlement
Agreement is an airport regulation that contains airport noise and access restrictions
(such as the provisions related to limits on noise - regulated departures, passenger
service levels and nighttime operations) in effect as of October 1, 1990. In other
words, the airport noise and access restrictions contained in the 1985 Settlement
Agreement are permissible pursuant to the provisions of ANCA and Part 161.
2. Within the meaning of, and for all purposes related to Section 9304(a)(2)(C)(iii) of
ANCA (49 U.S.C. § 47524(d)(3)) and Section 161.7(b)(3) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 161.7(b)(3)), the 1985 Settlement Agreement is an •
"intergovernmental agreement including airport noise or access restrictions" (such as
the provisions related to limits on noise - regulated departures, passenger service levels
and nighttime operations) that was "in effect on November 5, 1990." In other words,
the airport noise and access restrictions contained in the 1985 Settlement Agreement
are permissible pursuant to the provisions of ANCA and FAR Part 161 relating to
intergovernmental agreements.
3. Pursuant to Section 9304(a)(2)(C)(iv) of ANCA (49 U.S.C. § 47524(d)(4)) and
Sections 161.3(b) and 161.7(b)(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. §§
161.3(b) and 161.7(b)(4)), "a subsequent amendment of an airport noise or access
agreement or restriction in effect on November 5, 1990, that does not reduce or limit
aircraft operations or- affect aircraft safety" is permitted by ANCA and Part 161. The
seven prior amendments of the 1985 JWA Settlement Agreement and the modified
Amended Settlement Agreement, including the provisions related to limits on noise-
regulated departures, passenger service levels and nighttime operations, are each
subsequent amendments that are permitted pursuant to the sections quoted above
because they do not, in comparison to the analogous provisions of the 1985 JWA
Settlement Agreement, reduce or limit aircraft operations or affect aircraft safety.
4. A subsequent amendment of an airport noise or access agreement or restriction in
effect on November 5, 1990, that does not reduce or limit aircraft operations or affect
aircraft safety can be approved and implemented by the County pursuant to Section •
105(b)(1) of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3)) in
•David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
December 3, 2002
Page 3
accordance with its powers and rights as proprietor of JWA. The modified Amended
Settlement Agreement is such a subsequent amendment.
5. Implementation of the provisions of the modified Amended Settlement Agreement:
(a) Is not inconsistent with any of the County's "sponsor assurances" or other
covenants or obligations under any airport grant agreement entered into by
the County and FAA pursuant to any Federal law or regulation;
(b) Will not adversely affect any application for Federal grant funds submitted
in the future by the County for eligible projects at JCaA; and
(c) Will not adversely affect any application submitted in the future by the
County to impose or use passenger facility charges with respect to eligible
projects at JWA.
6. The modified Amended Settlement Agreement is consistent with and does not violate
• any provision of existing federal law for which FAA has statutory or delegated
enforcement or implementation responsibilities.
We are aware of the substantial and important national issues that FAA is addressing on a
continuing basis. We are also aware that our request that we receive your response, if at all
possible, by December 10, 2002, in order to allow the County and the other parties to take their
scheduled action to approve the settlement amendment modifications proposed by the airlines is
extraordinary.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
Settlement Agreement Amendments
On June 25, 2002, the parties to the 1985 Settlement Agreement (the County, the City of
Newport Beach ("City'], Stop Polluting Our Newport [ "SPON"] and the Airport Working Group
of Orange County; Inc. [ "AWG "]) approved amendments to the agreement. Those amendments
did not impose any restrictions on airport use at JWA beyond those in effect under the 1985
Settlement Agreement. However, the amendments did provide important access and capacity
enhancements which will allow JWA to serve substantially more passengers and air cargo than
permitted under the 1985 Settlement Agreement. In general terms, some of the more significant
amendments include: (a) authorizing, as early as January 1, 2003, increases in the permitted
• IeveI of noise regulated commercial air carver departures (from 73 ADD to 89 ADD — inclusive
David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel •
Federal Aviation Administration
December 3, 2002
Page 4
of 4 all -cargo ADD)' ; (b) effective January 1, 2003, authorizing increases in the permitted
passenger service level from 8.4 million annual passengers ( "MAP ") to 9.8 MAP; and (c)
authorizing immediate construction to increase the number of permitted passenger loading
brides from 14 to 18 bridges. The amendments also extend the term of the settlement
stipulation between the parties to December 31, 2015.
The Amendments were the outgrowth of an extensive public information program designed, in
part, to obtain widespread community support for increases in flights, passengers and loading
bridges in consideration of an extension of the term of the Settlement Agreement. Approval of
the Amendments, including the capacity enhancements, was supported by every city impacted by
operations at JWA and every "pro- airport" and "anti- airport" city that was actively involved in
the El Toro reuse planning. The Orange County Congressional delegation and Orange County
representatives in the State Legislature are unanimous in their support for the Amendments.
Air Carrier Requested Modifications to the Settlement Amendment
In August 2002, the County solicited input from airport users and the public on a wide range of
issues relating to allocation of the new capacity authorized by the settlement amendment and •
related modifications to the Phase 2 Access Plan, by which the County has regulated capacity
allocations and use since 1985. Written comments were submitted by all ten (10) incumbent air
carriers and two (2) potential new entrant airlines in September 2002. The County also offered
to meet with individual airlines, any airline trade organization, and the JWA Airport Airline
Affairs Committee ( "AAAC'� representing airlines serving JWA, at their convenience to discuss
any issues of significance to them. A number of such meetings have occurred, including a
continuing series of meetings with the AAAC.
The County has held a number of helpful meetings with FAA staff during 2002 in order to advise
the agency of the status of the County's process, and to discuss with them potential issues of
importance to the agency. At the request of FAA staff, we provided the agency with extensive
I In this respect, the City, AWG and SPON agreed to an important capacity enhancement which
significantly improves the flexibility of the air carriers in using their noise regulated operating capacity at JWA. As
part of the 1985 Master Plan project (approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 1985) and as
subsequently agreed to in the 1985 settlement agreement, the 73 regulated ADDS were divided into two classes:
"Class A ADDS" and "Class AA ADDs'�. These "classes" were differentiated and defined based upon aircraft noise
levels. The permitted Class A single event noise levels are higher than the Class AA permitted noise levels. All
other factors remainingp, equal, this means that the Class A flight can operate with a greater passenger load to more
distant markets. Of the 73 regulated ADDS permitted under the current settlement agreement, a maximum of 39
may be allocated as Class A ADDS, and 34 must be allocated as Class AA ADDS. In the settlement amendment, the
parties have eliminated the Class AA distinction, and all of the regulated ADDS permitted under the amendment are •
defined as Class A ADDS.
•David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
December 3, 2002
Page 5
historical information regarding the unique history of JWA noise regulations and the settlement
amendment process. We remain willing to provide any other information you may find helpful to
your consideration of this request. Finally, we have periodically met with and briefed the
members of the Orange County delegation and other members of Congress regarding the status
of the settlement amendment process.
The AAAC has requested modifications to the settlement amendments to increase passenger
service levels and permitted loading bridges beyond those originally agreed to by the parties on
June 25, 2002. These include increasing the number of gates from eighteen (18) to twenty (20),
increasing flexibility in using stair loading when necessary and some flexibility in passenger
carrier use of authorized cargo ADDS when there is not full demand for the cargo ADDS from
all -cargo carriers, and an increase in authorized passengers from 9.8 to 10.8 MAP. The City,
AWG and SPON are each willing to agree to, and expeditiously proceed to implement, these
modifications and the capacity enhancing provisions of the amendments on or before January 1,
2003, provided the County receives FAA's written concurrence on the questions presented in this
letter so that they can have the comfort of knowing that they will be able to receive the benefit of
their "bargain" without FAA opposition or legal challenge. The County both understands and
• supports this request.2
Additional Discussion
The County and the other settling parties, of course, believe that the 1985 Settlement Agreement
clearly qualifies under the "general grandfathering" provisions of ANCA, as well as the
"intergovernmental agreement" statutory exception of 49 U.S.C.A. §47524(d)(4). Even prior to
the 1985 agreement, and concurrent with the initiation of commercial operations at JWA, the
County has regulated maximum permitted noise and flight levels in an attempt to balance the
needs of the Orange County community for reasonable air service opportunities with the
legitimate environmental interests of communities located in the immediate vicinity of JWA. In
fact, the regulated nature of airport operations has been a defining characteristic of the facility
since the 1960's. The history and circumstances at JWA are, we believe, truly unique. We are
aware of only two other airports which have adopted "slot" restrictions similar to the County's
ADD limitations: South Lake Tahoe Airport and Long Beach Municipal Airport. Both operate
under special ANCA statutory exceptions. Since adoption of the limitations at South Lake
Tahoe Airport, due principally to lack of sufficient demand, commercial service has been
In addition to our desire to receive your response by December 10, 2002, so the County and the City can
take action on their scheduled regular agendas to approve the settlement amendment modifications, under the
County's Phase 2 Access Plan, capacity is allocated to the carvers beginning on April 1 of each year to be used
• through March 31 of the succeeding year. Normally, the County attempts to complete the allocation process 60 to
90 days in advance of April 1 in order to allow the air carriers time to make any necessary schedule changes. In
order to complete the process of allocating the new capaciry by April 1 of 2003, it is important that we receive
FAA's response to this letter at the earliest possible date.
David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration •
December 3, 2002
Page 6
intermittent, at best and, so far as we are aware, there is no scheduled commercial service at that
airport at the present time. The history of the adoption and final form of the Long Beach
regulations is, as FAA is aware, also unique, but Lon; Beach is not presently proposing a
regulatory increase in the number of operations permitted under its regulations and, until just
recently, had not experienced sufficient demand from air carriers to even fully allocate the
"slots" presently authorized by its regulations.
It seems equally clear to us that, since the settlement amendment (June 25, 2002) and the
settlement amendment modifications (proposed for action on December 10, 2002) only increase
capacity and do not adversely affect airport or aircraft safety, the settlement amendment and
settlement amendment modifications are entitled to the same "grandfathered" status under the
plain language of 49 U.S.C.A. §47524(d)(4) and are exempt from further compliance with
ANCA or FAR Part 161.
Finally, the County also believes that the amendment is plainly non - discriminatory, fair and
reasonable on its face within the meaning of the County's sponsor assurances in its airport grant
agreements with the FAA. In this respect, we do wish to make clear that the opinion requested
by this letter would, at least at this stage of the process, relate only to the terms of the settlement •
amendment. Issues relating to questions regarding the allocation of the new capacity authorized
by the settlement amendment are presently being addressed by the County in the context of
possible amendments to the Phase 2 Access Plan. Since the County has not yet made final
decisions regarding its intended means of allocation, we recognize that FAA cannot yet comment
on those allocation issues. We do intend, however, to continue to solicit input from FAA staff as
that process proceeds to ensure that the County satisfies its goals, and those of the FAA, in
ensuring that the allocation methodology is fair, reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory. On
October 28, 1985, the then Chief Counsel of FAA provided a letter to us, on behalf of the
County, concluding that the 1985 settlement agreement was not unjustly discriminatory and did
not otherwise violate the County s AT sponsor assurances, but reserved the right to comment
further on any implementing allocation process. The County understands that the FAA may
wish to reserve judgment on theallocation process until it is completed in this instance as well.
CONCLUSION
The significant improvements that have occurred in aircraft noise reduction technology since
1980, and the cooperation of the local communities affected by or concerned with the
environmental effects of airport operations, has permitted the County to significantly increase air
service opportunities at TWA. From an outdated and facilities strained airport which served a
total of two commercial carriers with a maximum of 41 permitted flights per day in 1980, JWA
has been able to grow to a modern airport which presently accommodates 10 commercial air •
David G. Leitch, Chief Counsel
• Federal Aviation Administration
December 3, 2002
Page 7
carriers and three commuter airlines operating as many as 130 daily flights.3 This has been
accomplished at an airport that operates on a total of less than 500 acres and one (5700 foot)
runway suitable for air carrier operations. The settlement amendment modifications represents
the latest effort by the County, the City and the citizens of Orange County to further recognize
the important contributions that the aviation industry has made to noise reduction, and the local
environmental benefits which have resulted from their aircraft investments and their cooperation
for the past 17 years in successfully implementing the 1935 Settlement Agreement.
All of the settling parties, including the County, recognize and are respectful of the legitimate
federal interest in aviation matters; and the cooperation, assistance and guidance which the
County has received from FAA staff during that period has been of critical importance to the
County's success in increasing airline service at JWA. Once again, FAA's assistance in that
process is critically important, and we hope that the agency will be able to provide us with the
requested opinion letter at an early date so that we can proceed to the allocation and operation of
the capacity enhancements afforded by the settlement amendment and settlement amendment
modifications.
• Again, if we can answer any questions, or provide you with any additional information, please
contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,,
Alan L. Mutphy
Airport Director
cc: Assistant Airport Director
Deputy Director, Public Affairs
Deputy Director, Operations
Deputy Director, Finance and Administration
Deputy Director, Facilities
Deputy Director, Business Development
Manager, Access and Noise
Access and Noise Office
County Counsel
Airport Special Counsel
• ' There have, since 1930, been a number of other air carvers and commuter airlines which have
served JWA but left the airport due to mergers, bankruptcy or business decisions by the individual carriers.