HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 MCAS EL TORO PLAN 04-05-99AGE; DA
DATE:
NO. 13
4-5-99
in t.e r-C o
APRIL 5, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
XVILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF
CITY OF TUSTIN RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF ORANGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL
ANALYSIS FOR ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 563 PERTAINING TO THE
MCAS EL TORO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUMMARY: Tustin City Council approval is requested prior to forwarding the attached
response to the County's Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Analysis fit suppm~t of
Environmental hnpact Report No. 563for the MCA$ E1 Toro "38 MAP" Reuse Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to forward the attached draft response to the
County's Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Information prepared in support of
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 563 for the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) E1 Toro
"38 Million Annual Passenger (MAP)" Master Plan Development.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
MCAS E1 Toro is an installation to be closed under the Defense Base Closure and RealigTLment Act
of 1990 with closure and realignment of all military activities anticipated by July 1999. The
County of Orange has been authorized by the Department of Defense to act as the Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and is solely responsible for planning the furore civilian reuse of
the closing base.
On December 11, 1996, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a Community Reuse
Plan (CRP) which included a full service commercial passenger and cargo airport estimated to
serve approximately 38.3 Million Annual Passengers (MAP) surrounded by aviation-compatible
land uses. The County had indicated at this time that John Wayne Airport would be closed and that
the existing aviation activities at JWA would be consolidated at the proposed international airport at
MCAS E1 Toro. This CRP is the only plan formally transmitted to the Department of Defense
(DOD) by the County and is currently recognized by the DOD as the only approved Reuse Plan for
MCAS E1 Toro.
City Council Report
MCAS E1 Toro EIR 563 Supplemental Analysis
April 5, 1999
Page 2
The County Board of Supervisors certified EIR 563 on December 11, 1996, despite on-going
concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 563 prepared for the project raised by
numerous community interests, including the City of Tustin (see attached December 6, 1996
correspondence from William A. Huston). Through a Ruling of the Superior Court issued October
28, 1997, the E1 Toro Reuse Planning Authority, et al (including the City of Tustin as a "Petitioner
and Plaintiff in Intervention" on certain points of the suit) successfully challenged the validity of
EIR 563 as inconsistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
On February 24, 1999, City of Tustin staff received a Notice of Availability of Supplemental
Analysis for Environmental Impact Report No. 563 for the MCAS E1 Toro Master Development
Plan. That document states that the County believes that because the court found only certain
portions of EIR 563 to be inadequate, those sections of EIR 563 which the court did not expressly
find to be inadequate are, by implication, adequate for purposes of CEQA. The subject document is
intended to take those actions necessary to correct the specified deficiencies in EIR 563 directed by
The Honorable Judith McConnell, judge of the Superior Court of California.
As part of the Phase II planning process for the MCAS E1 Toro, the County recently circulated a
Notice of Preparation for EIR 573 intended to analyze an airport Master Development Plan selected
by the Board of Supervisors as the "Proposed Project" (Plan C Alternative). The Master Plan for
Plan C Alternative and EIR 573 indicated that John Wayne Airport (JWA) would be retained in a
general aviation and short-haul passenger and cargo role with MCAS E1 Toro being converted to
"Orange County Intemational" (OCX) supporting a full domestic and international passenger and
cargo role. In this alternative, the two'airports would be linked with a transit facility to transport
passengers and baggage between the airports. The projected passenger service for this alternative
was approximately 23.4 MAP at OCX and approximately 10.1 MAP at JWA (JWA is currently
limited to 8.4 MAP) projected at the year 2020.
In addition to evaluating Altemative 'C' as the proposed project for EIR 573, the Board also
directed that Alternative B be analyzed to an equal level of detail in EIR 573. Under Alternative B,
OCX would provide a passenger level of 28.8 MAP and JWA would continue to serve general
aviation and for short and medium haul passenger service. Both Alternative A and B propose non-
aviation uses around the airport such as public uses, golf courses, parkland and open space. On
March 30, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed that Alternative B be identified as the "Proposed
Project"for purposes of work undev~vay on EIR 573. Circulation of the draft EIR 573 is currently
anticipated for release in August 1999 and will be commented on by staff at the appropriate time.
It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors have not adopted either Alternative B or C as the
official Community Reuse Plan for MCAS E1 Toro. Consequently, the DOD continues to
City Council Report
MCAS E1 Toro EIR 563 Supplemental Analysis
April 5, 1999
Page 3
recognize only the 38.3 MAP intemational airport CRP as the only official Reuse Plan for MCAS
E1 Toro.
If the Supplemental Analysis for EIR 563 currently provided by the County is found to be legally
sufficient, it is unclear whether the County will continue to pursue Alternative B in EIR 573.
Consequently, staff believes that the City's interest is best served by continuing to monitor and
comment upon both processes, when afforded the oppommity. Staff has consulted with the City
Attorney and Ms. Deborah Rosenthal, special counsel appointed by the Tustin City Council for the
E1 Toro EIR litigation. Staff requests that the Tustin City Council review and consider these
comments and, if acceptable, authorize formal transmission to the County of Orange.
Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
Christine A. Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
El Toro563
Attachments:
1. Draft comment response letter
Attachment 1
Community Redevelopment Agency
April6,1999
County of Orange
E1 Toro Master Development Program
Attn: Mr. Bryan Speegle
10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 927,80
Administration (714) 573-3107
Development (714) 573-312!
Housing (714) 573-3128
f';,ICAS-Tustin (714) 573-31 ! 6
(714) 573-3! 24
FAX (714) 573-3113
RE: PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY, MCAS EL TORO FINAL EIR 563 DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Dear Mr. Speegle;
The City of Tustin appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon the above referenced
document. Our review of the document has identified the following comments and concerns:
1. General-
a)
Although your Notice of Availability states that review of the MCAS E1 Toro Final EIR
563 Draft Supplemental Analysis would be limited to the modified sections provided, the
City of Tustin believes that Final EIR 563, did not adequately address potential impacts
nor did the County's Response to Comments provide factual responses to a number of
issues previously raised by Tustin as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). We believe that the JP -5 fuel pipeline and noise issues addressed in our
December 6, 1996 letter on this subject (see Exhibit 1) remain relevant and outstanding.
Consequently, the City of Tustin believes that the project should not be approved until
the identified project impacts on these topic areas have been identified and/or mitigated
and only after responding to our comments on the Supplemental Analysis documents.
We also believe that the entire document must be re-certified including any supplemental
analysis prepared to address the inadequacies of EIR 563.
b)
The trial court found that the EIR improperly assumed John Wayne Airport would be
expanded and then closed. Since the project description has not changed to eliminate
references to future operations at John Wayne Airport, our previous comments of October
14, 1996 regarding analyzing the effect of expanding or closing John Wayne Airport still
need to be addressed as follows:
Mr. Bryan Speegle
MCAS E1 Toro EIR 563 Supplemental Analysis
April 6, 1999
Page 2
,
Subsection 2.5.1.1. Role of John Wayne Airport. Alternative B assumes that
John Wayne Airport (JWA) would continue to provide passenger service.
Reference is made to JWA passenger service as being 15 million passengers a
year by the year 2020. In the City of Tustin's May 9, 1996 comments prepared in
response to the Notice of Intent, we identified that JWA is currently limited
through agreement to 8.4 million passengers annually and requested that any
increase beyond 8.4 million passengers be evaluated for noise and other
environmental impacts in the draft EIR. This information has not been provided
and is still requested. In addition, there is no discussion, information, or analysis
provided regarding the potentially negative economic impacts associated with the
elimination of commercial uses at John Wayne Airport.
c)
The document does not satisfactorily explain why the baseline condition changed
from that used in EIR 563 (1994 to 1995) or whY the document references different
years (1995, 1997) as the baseline condition used.
d)
The No Project Analysis depends upon the assumption that the MCAS E1 Toro base
will remain vacant and unused. However, a more realistic approach would have been
that some activities (caretaker, remediation contractor, etc.) would continue to take
place should a "No Project" alternative be pursued. Therefore, we request that this
more realistic No Project Alternative be analyzed in the document.
Noise -
a)
The thai court stated "no 'project equates to no activity since the base in slated for closure
in 1999". The increase in noise levels above those assumed for the "no project"
alternative should be provided in the supplemental analysis. Typically, increases of more
than 3 dB in noise levels are considered significant and should be mitigated. Increases in
noise levels above the no project alternative are not adequately identified or mitigated.
The supplemental EIR should provide a comparison of noise levels among the project
alternatives including the no project alternative and identify mitigation for all noise
increases above 3 dB. As the trial court stated, "Assuming 1994 base military operations
is the appropriate general CEQA baseline, respondent must still factor the anticipated
closure of the base into its analysis of the proposed project's environmental impacts".
Further, "The base's scheduled closure in mid-1999 was not properly factored in into the
EIR's analysis of the proposed project's environmental effects and, as a result, these
impacts were artificially minimized." A meaningful and substantive evaluation of noise
impacts within and outside the 65 CNEL contour should be provided.
b)
The document indicates that mitigation for noise impacts only requires the County to
"consider" implementing design considerations that would reduce impacts. These
measures should be required rather simply considered.
Mr. Bryan Speegle
MCAS E1 Toro EIR 563 Supplemental Analysis
April 6, 1999
Page 3
3. Air Quality-
c)
The overall analysis indicates that a commercial airport at E1 Toro would not change the
regional emission totals for commercial aviation operations as projected by the AQMP
since the E1 Toro Airport "would act to redistribute operations from other airports with
the air basin as opposed to generating new flights" (page 27, Appendix P). As a result,
the supplemental EIR states that Alternative A would result in a positive benefit on
regional air quality and no mitigation measures are proposed. This conclusion is
unfounded since the project description does not set forth or propose specific operational
changes or capacities at other airports in the air basin. Through this project, the County
of Orange does not have control over future operations at other airports within the air
basin with the exception of John Wayne Airport. The analysis should not include
assumptions or scenarios that the County of Orange cannot control. In addition,
assuming that operations from other airports would be redistributed to E1 Toro implies
that there is not a need for an airport at E1 Toro and operations have been or could be
accommodated elsewhere in the air basin.
d) As with potential noise impacts, the air quality analysis should offer a comparison of the
No Project Alternative to the project alternatives.
e)
Mitigation Measure AQ-4 is directly related to the transportation mitigation measures.
The new transportation mitigation measures rely on interagency coordination for
improvements to locally controlled roadways to offset adverse impacts. Since it. cannot
be guaranteed that these measures will be implemented, they are inadequate and need to
be revised. The trial court found that that the County had improperly deferred
meaningful mitigation measures for other environmental topics and the new mitigation
measures have the same flaw.
Mitigation Measure AQ-7 defers meaningful mitigation measures to the construction
phase of the project. Operational measures that would reduce potential impacts need to
be identified in conjunction with the Airport Master Plan process.
g)
Mitigation Measure AQ-8 through AQ-10 only requires the County to "consider"
implementing design considerations that would reduce impacts. These measures should
be required rather simply considered.
4. Transportation and Circulation-
a)
Figures S2-2/S2-3/S2-4: Existing Plus Buildout of Alternative A/B/C ADT Volumes.
The Level of Project Impact legend should indicate the impact based on Level of Service
(LOS) so that it is comparable with Figure S2-1: Existing ADT Volumes.
b) Section 2.3.5 Project mitigation Measures. T-1 and T-2: Identification of specific levels
of capacity augmentation (T-l) and preparation of and Area Traffic Improvement Action
Mr. Bryan Speegle
MCAS E1 Toro EIR 563 Supplemental Analysis
April 6, 1999
Page 4
Plan (T-2) should occur at the first level of approval. Mitigation language should be
amended to read: Before the County Board of Supervisors adopts an amendment to the
Land Use Element or D'ansportation Element of the General Plan related to the
implementation of the Community Reuse Plan, or approves an airport master plan for an
airport on the MCAS El Toro site, whichever occurs first...
Thank you again for providing the City with the opportunity to review and comment on the
Supplemental Analysis for EIR.563. The City of Tustin is interested in receiving a response to
our comments when they become available. Please contact me at (714) 573-3116 if you have
any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
Eir563supp
CC:
William A. Huston
Christine A. Shingleton
Elizabeth Binsack
Tim Serlet
Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney
Deborah Rosenthal, Special Counsel
Exhibit 1
Office of the City Manager
December 6, 1996
OranGe County BOard of Supervisors
Attn: Jan Mittermeier
Chief Executive Officer
10 Civic Center Plaza, 5th Floor
Santa. Aha, California 92701
SUBJECT:
'C
ity of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
(714) 573-3010
FAX (714} 838-1602
EL TORO COMMUNITY REUSE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - T~E PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE
APPROVED; SUBSTANTI~ EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY TEE CITY OF
TUSTIN SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT TffAT T~IE PROJECT WILL
fIAVE-EFFECTS TF~AT ~AVE'NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AArD/OR
MITIGATED ~
Dear Ms. Mittermeier:
The City of Tustin appreciates receiving a copy of the subject
document for'our review. Overall, the EIR and Response to
Comments do not adequately, address potential impacts nor do they
provide reasoned, factual responses.as required by the California
Environmental Quality.Act (CEQA). The project should not be
approved; substantial evidence presented by the City of Tustin
supports a fair argument that the project will have effects that
have not been identified and/or mitigated..
Please refer to our comment letter dated October 14, 1996
(attached). The followinG are the more significant instances
where the County's draft EIR and Response to Comments are
insufficient and/or incorrect.
JP5 Fuel Pipeline
Comment EIR-L-140 requested the citation for the study that
stated that the transport of military aviation fuel and
civilian aviation fuel which is transported through the
existing JP5 fuel pipeline "would present approximately the
same potential fire risk related to explosions.', This
citation is not provided in the response.
The potential hazards of civilian use of the JP5 fuel
pipeline is a critical issue which should be fully addressed
in the Program EIR at 'the level of detail appropriate for an
integral component of the Proposed Project. The County
acknowledges in Response to Comment EIR-L-140 that,
"Alternatives to using the military pipeline would include
LetSer [o Jan Mit[ermeier
E1 Toro Community Reuse Plan EIR Response to Comments
December 6, 1996
Page 2
the use of tanker trucks, but trucking fuel would probably
not be practical due to the volume of fuel which would be
needed under the Proposed Project (Reuse Alternative A)."
As such, Response to Comment EIR-O-1654 is incorrect in
stating that, "The use of this pipeline to serve civilian
aviation needs is considered an option in the DEIR." 'Since
the pipeline is the more likel~ and practical alternative
for' transporting fuel for the Proposed Project, a detailed
discussion of-the potential impacts to properties adjacent
to the pipeline and appropriate mitigation shOuld be
provided in the first tier of the EIR.
Noise
General Response N6 does not pertain to the issues raised in
the comments EIR-L-165' through EIR-L-167. These comments
focused on the significant increases in CNEL and SENEL at
noise receptor location Ti and noted the EIR's failure to
recognize any increase except those above 65 CNEL as
significant. Although areas in Tustin may not be exposed to
noise levels above 65 CNEL, we will experience more than a
three (3) dB increase in the average and single event
(flyover) noise levels. Typically, a three (3) dB or more
increase is recognized as significant whether or not'the
resulting noise level exceeds 65 dB CNEL. These increases
should be recognized as significant and properly mitigated.
..
Comment EIR-L-169 requested information regarding.the number
of operations that would depart to the north and east by.
.time of day (i.e., day,. evening, nighttime).under each
alternative. Although this level of detail must have been
generated for purposes of noise modeling, this information
was not included in the EIR and is not provided in the
response.
Comment EIR-L-170 noted that no areas within Tustin's
corporate boundaries were modeled for noise and requested
additional noise receptor locations within the Tustin Ranch
area. The response indicates that the noise receptor sites
were concentrated under the flight tracks and all locations
to the side of the flight tracks will be quieter than the
sites in the DEIR. We continue to question whether an area
that is directly under the flight track (not to the side of
the flight track) that is closer to the 60 CNEL contour than
Ti will actually experience quieter noise levels. In
Letter to Jan Mittermeier
E1 Toro Community Reuse Plan EIR Response to Comments
December 6, 1996
Page 3
addition, the more than 16,000 foot separation between the
northernmost receptor in Irvine (Il) and the receptor in
north Tustin (TI) is the largest distance between any of the
receptor locations. Neither I1 or Ti provide an accurate
analysis of the noise impacts to Tustin Ranch.
Please enter-this letter and the attached letter to Paul Lanning
from Elizabeth Binsack RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) 563 FOR THE EL TORO MARINE CORPS AIR STATION COMMUNITY
REUSE PLAN DATED OCTOBER 14, 1996 as part of the public testimony
that the Board of Supervisors, acting as the Local Redevelopment
Authority, will consider on December 10, 1996.
If you have any questions, please call Elizabeth Binsack,
Director of Community Development, at (714) 573-3031.
Sincerely,
William Huston
City Manager
W;~q: KS: kb~\etrespon, ltr
Attachments:
LETTER TO PAUL LANNING FROM ELIZABETH BINSACK RE:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 563 FOR
THE EL TORO MARINE CORPS AIR STATION COMMUNITY
REUSE PLAN DATED OCTOBER 14, 1996
CC:
Supervisor Roger R. Stanton
Supervisor James W. Silva
Supervisor Donald J. Saltarelli
Supervisor William G. Steiner
Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson
Tustin City Council