HomeMy WebLinkAboutOld Bus. #1 12-04-89 Airport StTO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AIRPORT STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA),
COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS),
AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHTS
TASK FORCE (HOTF)
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION
JWA - There is no new information to report at this time.
CRAS - On November 21st, Kathy Weil attended a meeting of SCAG's
Aviation Work Program Committee. At that meeting, the Inter-
County Airport Authority (ICAA) submitted their report on the
feasibility of commercial use of MCAS E1 Toro. While the report
was submitted, very little discussion occurred on that topic. The
attached memo from Kathy summarizes the meeting (Attachment I).
A CRAS board meeting was held on November 27th. Attached to this
report is a memo from Kathy Weil reporting on that meeting
(Attachment II).
ASC - The last meeting for ASC was held on November 18th. At that
time, consensus team members were provided the opportunity to
review and comment on the Draft Final Report that will be d~livered
to SCAG's Aviation Work Program Committee in late December. The
Draft Final Report recommends the following four (4) sites, ranked
in order, for further evaluation:
·
Potrero Los Pinos, a proposed Medium Haul airport between
San Juan Capistrano and Lake Elsinore in the Cleveland
National Forest, in Orange County;
·
South Camp Pendleton, a proposed International Airport
on the coastal shelf within Camp Pendleton, just north
of the City of Oceanside in San Diego County;
·
Cristianitos Canyon, a proposed Medium Haul airport
inland of San Clemente and Camp Pendleton in Orange
County; and
City Council Report
JWA Status Report
December 4, 1989
Page two
·
March Air Force Base, a proposed Medium Haul airport
adjacent to the cities of Moreno Valley and Perris in
western Riverside County.
Norton Air Force Base, which has been identified for closure by the
Air Force, was dropped from consideration because the City and
County of San Bernardino have initiated a joint planning effort to
develop Norton Air Force Base as a commercial airport.
Consequently, it was felt that continued inclusion in ASC's study
would be a duplication of efforts. However, the majority of
comments received from consensus team members suggested that North
AFB should be included in ASC's study, as a regional facility such
as that, serviced by a high speed rail system, could help address
Orange County's problem. Another prevalent comment suggested that
the final list of sites not be ranked.
A copy of the Draft ~nal Report is attached' for the Council's
information (Attachment 'III).
HOTF - There is no new information to report at this time.
Steve Rubin,
Associate Planner
Christin~ A. Shingleton,
Director of Community Development
SR:CAS:'kbc
Attachments: Attachments I, II and III
Community Development Department
MEMO
TO: TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KATHY WEIL
RE: November 21, 1989 meeting of SCAG's Aviation Work Program Committee
The first subject discussed was a report on the progress of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commis-
sion. Unlike the infamous Bullet Train, this one will go through extensive environmental reviews. The EIR
should be ready for review by the cities by mid 1990 sometime. The Commission will be considering state of
the art high speed train technology (the French "TGV" high speed train or the French "Mag-Lev".) From the
sounds of it this train will happen, and probably not too soon.
SCAG's Aviation Systems study was discussed at some length. Al Bell, the consultant hired by the Airport
Site Coalition gave a synopsis of the 20 month study done by the group. The Coalition's report will be
available, in its Final Draft, around Dec.22,1989. The feasibility study of E1 Toro, done by Ken Delano and
ICAA, was available for the members of the committee to study. I'm assuming that CRAS staff also has a
copy. The fact that E1 Toro had been eliminated from the Coalition's recommendations was discussed. The
idea of moving E1 Toro to George Air Force Base was discussed until COl. Jack Wagner revealed that the
Federal committee that researched and finally recommended the closure of several military bases, recently,
considered moving El Toro to George and dismissed the idea as being too costly, both in dollars and in
strategic value. According to Col. Wagner, this committee's decision is FINAL. (I don't know how many times
we have to kill this idea). Four other sites in Orange county are still under consideration - 1) Los Pinos, near
the Riverside border 2) South Camp Pendalton 3) Christianitos, near San Clemente ( and San Onofre) and
4) March Air Force base. Since the recently closed Norton Air Force in San Bernadino county is being
considered as a county airport for San Bernadino County the coalition did not include it as one of it's
recommendations for Orange county. However, there was stong support on the Coalition for a Multi-
County Regional Airport, with possible high speed rail connections. A Joint Powers Authority would have to
be established. Henry Wedaa, Chairman of the SCAG Work Program committee, stated that "We may not
need an Orange county airport if we have a good high speed train to a regional airport."
Though Ken Delano was there, very little was said about the ICAA report on El Toro that he authored. We'll
have to wait until the January meeting before anything else is said about this and for the next chapter in this
on-going saga.
.-'.TTACHMTNT I
MEMO:
TO: TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KATHY WEIL
RE: November 27, 1989 Meeting of CRAS
One of the first orders of business was to thank the City of Tustin for their donation of $1000. A letter
will be forthcoming.
· There was a brief report by Sam Rake (CRAS Legislative Aide on parttime loan from the City of Irvine
Community Development Dept.), on the SCAG Airport Committee meeting I recently attended and
reported on. Nothing new since my last report, except that San Bernadino County and (~ity have been
given the go-ahead to form a joint powers authority of the county, city and some of the surrounding
smaller cities for the purpose of establishing Norton Airforce base as a fully commercial municipal/
regional airport.
CRAS will be publishing a quarterly newsletter, the first issue'Of which will include an invitation to the
Annual Meeting of the entire CRAS membership in March.
Next meeting will be on January 22, 1990.
-- RECEIVED ,.-
NO¥ 2
COI~i~UNITY DEVLEOPi~t:NT
-' .TTACH II
NRPORT SITE CONSENSUS
PROGRAM
DRAFT fiNAL REPORT
NOVEMBER 18, 1989
A ;TACH'ME
IT
III
.AIRPORT SITE CONSENSUS PROGRAM
FOR
ORANGE COUNTY
Round III Evaluation of Candidate Sites
and Program Summary
November 18, 1989
The Planning Center
KennedyfJenks/Chilton
P & D Technology
DKS Associates
EXEC~ $~Y
TABLE OF CONTEb'
PART ONE: S~Y PROGRAM DES~ON
I. PROGRAM SPONSORSHIP AND AUTHOI~I7.ATION .......... I- 1
II. PROGRAM CONCEPT AND CONSENSUS PROCESS .......... I-1
III. PROBLEM DEFINrHON AND MISSION STATEMENT ......... I-2
IV. - EVALUATION PROCESS ............................ I-2
¥. SUMMARY OF SITES CONSIDERED .................... I-3
PART TWO: PROGRAM COMPLETION
I. ROUND Ill EVALUATION AND PROGRAM COMPLE'HON ..... IL1
II. SUMMARY OF MEFHODOLOOY CHANGES FOR ROUND HI
PART THREE: ROUND Ill DECISION SUMMARY
II-2
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDINGS ............. III-1
PART FOUR: ROUND ITt SITE ANALYSIS SUMMARIES
I. THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE ....................... IV-1
II. SITE SUMMARI~ ................................
A. SOUTH CAMP PENDLETON ..................... IV-4
B. MARCH AIR FORCE BASE ...................... IV-15
C. POTRERO LOS PINOS ......................... IV-24
D. CRISTIANrros CANYON ....................... IV-36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PART FIVE: TECHNICAL REPORT III
I. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR ROUND 1TI EVALUATION ..... V-1
ri. ROUND RI CRITERIA EVALUATION ................... V-2
h~
WILL THE SITE MEET DEMAND? ................. V-2
1. Capacity of Site .......................... V-2
2. Passenger Demand Served ................... V-9
3. Air Cargo and General Aviation Service ........... V-14
B,
WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BUILD THE SITE ? ......... V-14
1. TL-netable for Airport Development .............. V-14
2. Total Capital Costs of Development per Pass.enger .... V- 18
3. Local Support/Concerns ..................... V-23
4. Regional Support/Concerns ................... V-24
5. State Support/Concerns ...................... V-26
6. National Support/Concerns ................... V-27
7. Grass Roots Support/Concerns ................. V-29
C.
WHAT WILL THE RESULTING IMPACTS BE? ........ V-32
1. Aircraft Noise Impacts ....... ' ............... V-32
2. Aircraft Accidem Risk ...................... V-37
3. Surface Traffic ............. ' .............. V-40
4. Impacts on the Military ..................... V-56
5. Airspace Impacts ......................... V-57
6. Air Quality ............................. V-59
7. Flora and Fauna .......................... V-64
8. Human Health/Exposure to Hazards .............. V-68
9. Water systems ........................... V-71
10. Socioeconomic Benefits ..................... V-74
11. Socioeconomic Costs ....................... V-79
PART SIX:
Ie
He
me
IVe
Vie
VIIe
TABL~ OF CONT.'
(Continued)
STRATBGY FOR ACTION
INTRODUCYION ................................. VI-1
BSTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING MOMI/I~FUM .......... VI-1
D~I'~MINATION OF AIRPORT SPONSORSHIP ............
A. Federal ....................................
B. State
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · * · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
c.
D. Orange County ...............................
SITE IMPLEMENTATION ............................
FINALIST S1TES .................................
ACTION ENTri'lIiS ...............................
OTHE~ SITES ....................................
VHI. PIVOTAL DECISION .... ' .........
VI-2
VI-2
VI-2
VI-2
VI-3
.ABLE OF CONTENTS (Continue..
PART SEVEN: APPENDICES
a~
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H?
I.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P?
Q?
R.
GLOSSARY
QUICK FAcTs: THE AIRPORT SITE COALITION
THE PARTICIPANTS
SOLUTIONS THROUGH CONSENSUS BUILDING
GENERAL INFORMA~ON / BACKGROUND
PRIN~~ FOR PERSONAL PARTICIPATION
JULY 22, 1989 S1TE CONSENSUS TEAM COMMH/~ITS
NOVEMBER 18, 1989 S1TE CONSENSUS TEAM CO~S
ESTIMATED PASSENGER DEMAND FOR ROUND III CANDIDATE
SrrF. S
ESTIMA~ PASSENGER DEMAND FOR ALTERNATE SCENARIOS
FA~ REQ~ OF ROUND III CANDIDATE S1TF_~
CAPri'AL COST ESTIMATES OF ROUND III CANDIDATE SITF~
A/RSPACE ASSESSMENTS AND nVIPA~ ON THE NOI.rrARY
GRASS ROOTS SUBCOMM/q~EE REPORT
BIOLOGICAL REPORTS
DOCUMENTATION SUBCOMMfi'rt~E REPORT
CONSENSUS TEAM PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
PREVIOUS AVIATION STUD~ RELATED TO ORANGE COUNTY
(a) These appendices will not be possible to complete until after the November 18 Site Consensus Tenm
Meeting. Only title pages will be found in this draft.
AIRPO?' '~ITE CONSENSUS PROGRAM F~ ORANGE COUNTY
In December, 1985 the court settlement of the suit between the County of Change, the City
of Newport Beach and the Airport Woddng Group over expansion plans for John Wayne
Airport was concluded. That agreement set in motion a chain of events which, four years
later, resulted in the identification of four candidate airport sites that could serve part of the
14.8 wi11ion annual passenger shortfall projected for Orange County in the year 2010.
These recommended sites are the result of an indepth site evaluation and selection process
undertaken by the Airport Site Consensus Program for Orange County. The process was
initiated by the Airport Site Coalition, m association of four non-profit community
organizations who want to help solve the air transportation problem in Orange County. The
Airport Working Group; the Industrial League of Orange County; the Orange County
Aviation Council and the Orange County Chamber of Commerce sought and were granted
funding from the Federal Aviation Administrntion (FAA) through the assistance of the
County of Orange.
Structured as part of the Southern California Association of Govemments' (SCAG) Regional
Aviation System Study, the Program was unique in that: 1) it was a private sector approach
to find a solution to an important public issue; 2) its funding was substantially angrnented
by contributions raised by the Coalition; 3) it involved broad citizen participation in the
form of an Airport Site Consensus Team; and 4) its basic recommendation is to pursue one
of four candidate sites rather than concentrating exclusively on a single site as in some
previous studies.
Over 300 participants were involved in the 20 month effort between May, 1988 and
December, 1989. They considered 31 sites or site variations at 22 candidate locations during
that period. Attendance at the 10 work sessions for review of draft reports prepared by the
Program teclmical consultant team ranged from 80 to 140.
The objective was to reach consensus on a recommended airport site or sites to supplement
John Wayne Airport in serving Orange County's projected, passenger shortfall. Potential
sites were also to-be evaluated for suitability to meet general aviation and air cargo needs.
The definition of consensus used in this Program was not "unanimous agreement". Rather,
it was "sufficient satisfaction to be able to proceed to the next step".
Not surprisingly, there was selective opposition to each site. There 'was also general
agreement that the process must continue, using the results of this Program as a foundation.
Since the mission of the Program was to recommend an airport site or sites to serve Orange
County, other transportation options were acknowledged, but not explored in depth: high
speed rail systems to substitute for air travel or connect the County to remote sites such as
George Air Force Base; small urban vertiports to accommodate tilt-rotor aircraft; and system
management programs to reallocate airspace or change existing airport operations.
Considerable effort was ~,,,t in deeming the 21 criteria used in ,, three phased site
evaluation, screening and elimination process. These criteria responded to three basic
questions:
1) 'vV'dl the site meet demand?
2) What will it take to build the site?
3) What will the potential impacts be?
The 31 sites were screened and eventually reduced to four. Using the site evaluation criteria
and weighting values, the Site Consensus Team ranked the finalist sites in the following
order.
1)
Potrero Los Pinos, a proposed Medium Haul aixpon between San luan
Capistrano and Lake Elsinore in the Cleveland National Forest, in Orange
Count;
2)
South Camp Pendleton, a proposed Intemational Airport on the coastal shelf
within Camp Pendleton, just north of the City of Oceanside in San Diego
County;
3)
Cristianitos Canyon, a proposed Medium Haul airport inland of San Clemente
and Camp Pendleton in Orange County.
4)
March Air Force Base, a proPOsed Medium Haul airport adjacent to the cities
of Moreno Valley and Penis in westem Riverside County; and
Three of the-remaining four sites are near the point at which Orange, Riverside and
San Diego counties join, making them strategic locations in light of growth pressures
converging on this area from the north, south and east.
An.extensive effort was made to identify potential sites in. and outside of Orange County.
Four site locations were considered in Riverside County: March Air Force Base; March Air
Force Base - Offset; Lakeview Mountains and Mesa de Colorado. Three sites were
considered in San Diego County: North Camp Pendleton; South Camp Pendleton and
Palomar Aixport. Only March Air Force Base and South Camp Pendleton remain on the list
of i'malist sites. ' '.
Progress was made. during the Program in developing a model to allocate passenger demand
to all existing and proposed sites through the efforts of a Special Passenger Demand
Subcommittee. Further work to validate and refine the model would be of value.
A key ingredient in this Report is the Strategy for Action, which sets the stage for an
Action Plan to be developed by the Airport Site Coalition. The keystone of the Strategy is
to form a Joint Venture Team as an airport sponsor to prepare and obtain approval of a
Master Plan for or 'the recommended sites. The $oi, ;nture Team would be made up
of a public sector u..,aber and a private airport constmcu ,dfm c g consonium. The
Airport Site Coalition, aided by Site Consensus Team members who wish to help, would
seek establishment of the Joint Venture Team.
Key conclusions from this 'Program include:
1)
All sites investigated have serious obstacles, not unexpected in this dynamic
region of Southern California. Those sites that respond most to Consensus
Team criteria and best serve Orange County have been identified. This
represents a compromise because the criteria are highly impact oriented and
the problem is highly demand oriented.
2)
Nothing in this program diminishes the importance or value of other systems
improvements: redesign of airspace and routes; enhanced transit service; new
modes of high speed rail travel or other options. The focus has been on
which airport sites best meet Orange County's needs.
3)
The four finalist sites best serve the three county area (Orange, Riverside and
San Diego) in the greater Southern Califomia region in which the greatest
furore need for a new airport exists.
4)
There is considerable merit in the Sou~hem California Association of
Governments and the San Diego Association of Govemmen~s working jointly
to develop a passenger demand allocation model derived from the one
developed in this Program.
Since all sites present significant issues and challenges, the key now is .to
build a Joint Venture Team to sponsor a site and proceed to get it approved
and built.
6)
A non-conventional arrangement of terminals remote from the runway complex
is imperative in the case of Potrero Los Pinos, would be beneficial in the case
of South Camp Pendleton and could also be applicable to Cristianitos Canyon.
7)
The Potrero Los Pinos site should be treated as a profit center to generate
funds for the management and enhancement of the environmental resources it
impacts and which provide the buffer from development necessary to preserve
the airport's operational capability.
8)
Strong local opposition to a site in Orange County is unavoidable, h may be
possible to negotiate a package of general benefits 'to the region that also
incorporates acceptable impacts and significant benefits to the communities
most impacted by the site. That will have to be resolved in the site master
planning process.
9)
The endors~.s~ent, involvement and cooperation o~ey governments in pursuing
the Action Plan at City, County, Regional, State and Federal levels is critical,
and the necessity now is for them to make that commitment.
lO)
The subsequent study and analysis required for any one of the finalist sites
pursued by the Joint Venture Team must begin with the opportunities and
concerns documented in this Program and be completed as pan of the master
planning for that site.
The process has put into focus for many of its participants the reality of how difficult a
solution to the County's air transportation situation is. Over 25 sites or site variations were
found not to merit further consideration. Yet, half of the sites remaining as finalists are
new sites within Orange County that have not been previously identified.
The scope of the Final Report is intended to document the information, questions, concerns
and rationale for all that has gone on within the Program. It contains the points of
consensus, as well as the issues on which closure was not reached. It provides a foundation
for properly scoping the analysis to accompany the subsequent site master planning for
another airport to serve Orange County and its neighboring counties.
The Strategy for Action outlines the approach recommended for taking the next crucial steps.
It is now up to the decision makers and opinion leaders to take the first of those steps:
forming a Joint Venture Team to move forward on a site.
4
PART ONE:
SUMMARY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
NOTE: A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE
AIRPO~ SITE CONSENSUS PROGRAM IS INCLUDED AS
APPENDIX A OF THIS REPORT.
I. PROGRA~ 9NSORSHIP AND AUTHOr" xl
The Airport Site Consensus Program for Orange County was initiated and sponsored by the
Airport Site Coalition, a voluntary non-profit Corporation made up of four member
organizations: the Airport Working Group of Orange County; the Industrial League of
Orange County; the Orange County Aviation Council and the Orange County Chamber of
Commerce. (See Appendix B for a more detailed description of the sponsoring
organizations.)
The Coalition was selected by the Orange County Board of Supervisors' on March 11, 1987
to search for an additional airport site to serve Orange County in conformance with a
provision of the 1985 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement (see Appendix B). The
provision acknowledged that "there may be third party public or private groups interested in
pursuing activities to identify possible additional airport sites with the County to use its
airport proprietor and public entity status to endorse and, if necessary, to assist any ultimate
third party site selection efforts in seeking federal grant funds which might be available for
such additional site study efforts". This agreement also set limits on the operation of John
Wayne Airport, the most relevant of which is a maximum of 8.4 million annual passengers
(MAP) until the year 2005.
In September, 1987, a Grant Application to conduct the site search was filed with the
Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of the Airpon Site Coalition by the County of
Orange. It was revised in March, 1988 to become an integral part of the Regional Aviation
System Study being conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG). Funding was approved the next month and the Program formally got underway on
May 21, 1988 (See Appendix C for list of program participants.)
In addition to FAA funding, The Airport Site Coalition raised a considerable amount of
money during the course of the Program from Orange County cities, corporate contributors,
and foundations.
The Program is supported by a Technical Consultant Team consisting of The Planning
Center, Kennedy/lenks/Chilton, P&D Technology, DKS Associates and The Research
Network.
.e
II. PROGRAM 'CONCEPT AND CONSENSUS PROCESS
This Program differed from previous airport site searches by involving both technical site
analysis and broad community participation throughout the process (See Appendix D.) The
vehicle for participation was the Airport Site Consensus Team made up of representatives
from a broad array of cities, community organizations and interest groups. Over 300
individuals participated on this Team, with individual workshops attended by 80 to 150
The consensus process was designed to move from step to step in the site search and
analysis.. At each step, a reasonable level of acceptance was reached before moving on to
the next step. Consensus, in this process, was deirmed as a willingness to accept a cenain
I-1
level of achievement be~ moving on to the next step. It d~
agreement. (See Appendix E.)
Jt mean universal
The device for moving through the Program was a draft of the material being discussed,
with a refined and improved draft leading to the next phase of the Program. This process
was aided by a Refinement Committee which assisted the technical staff in the job of
interpreting and incorporating comments and recommendations.
The Site Consensus Team meetings were actually workshops for the review of draft material.
They involved working groups of 8 to 10 members, who discussed the material, noted their
comments and reported their irmdings to the rest of the Team. Each group was represented
at the Refinement Committee level.
The political sensitivity of the airport issue, complexity of some of the technical
considerations, diversity of positions among the participants and extensive time required to
complete the study imposed real burdens on each participant. To aid in this process, a
statement, of "Principles for Personal Participation" (see Appendix F) was accepted as the
basis for individual participation.
The diversity of interests on this controversial subject resulted in differences of opinion that
did not get resolved. For that reason, comments were noted for the record and serve in
part as "minority reports". (See Appendices G and H, Suly 22, 1989 and November 18,
1989 Site Consensus Team Comments.)
.RI.
PROBLEM DEFINrrION AND MISSION STATI~ENT
The problem addressed by the Airport Site Coalition was the fact that $ohn Wayne Airport
cannot support the passenger demand projected to be generated by Orange County (See
Appendix E). That capacity shortfall is projected to be 14.8 MAP by the year 2010. While
other airports in the region, notably LAX, also serve Orange County's air travelers, they are
constrained in a variety of ways and are increasingly difficult to access.
The agreed upon Mission Statement, then, was to "study altematives and recommend an
airport site or sites to meet the air transportation needs in a manner that is sensitive to
political, environmental and social requirements to meet the projected shortfall of air
passenger capacity in Orange County, areas around Orange County and the Southern
California Region". While the $ohn Wayne settlement agreement specified a search for
another site, the Site Consensus Team recognized., that more than one additional site might
also be an appropriate solution.
IV. EVALUATION PROCESS
Several cycles of site evaluation were completed. The first cycle in Round I involved
screening out. sites which were considered technically infeasible because of potential wind
I-2
shear problems, ex~
considerations.
Je obstacle clearance problems or
~r aircraft operational safety
The Site Comensus Team developed a set of 21 criteria with which to evaluate the
remaining sites. They also. developed a weighting system to prioritize the criteria. Two
additional site elimination cycles were completed during Round I while these criteria and
weights were being developed.
The second cycle involved e 'luninating sites which had virtually no airspace
capacity potential.
A third screening cycle dropped sites which were particularly deficient in
passenger capacity, passenger demand and quality of airspace.
A fourth cycle, formally named the Round H screening, ranked all of the remaining sites
and eliminated those sites that scored poorly against the evaluation criteria.
During the fifth cycle, the Technical Team and the Airport Site Coalition developed
recommendations on which of the remaining sites should be dropped or carried forward into
Round HI as finalist candidate sites.
The final screening cycle was Round HI, which ranked the sites according to the Team's
criteria, but did not preclude their consideration by implementing agencies as part of the
Action Plan.
V. SUMMARY OF SITES CONSIDERED
A total of 31 separate sites or site variations have been investigated. They are sites that
have either been considered in previous studies, developed by the technical Consultant Team,
or nominated by members of the Site Consensus Team. During the latter portion of the
Program, several sites were also considered at varied haul lengths.
Sites considered and rejected for further consideration include:
A. For reasons of technical infeasibility:
,
2.
3.
4.
Bell Canyon in southeast Orange County;
Mesa de Colorado in southwestem Riverside County;
North Camp Pendleton in northwestern San Diego County; and
Santiago Canyon in north central Orange County.
Technical infeasibility was defined to mean, "incapable of safe aircraft operations because of
a natural limitation on the site that could not be overcome".
The Mesa de Colorado and Santiago Canyon sites were rejected because.of potential
unpredictable wind shear during Santa Ana wind conditions. This condition arises from the
I-3
impact of high winds oz, ,,e east side of the Santa Ana Moun,L.,ls and the ridges near the
Santa Ana Canyon, causing violent turbulence and downdrafts near the ground . There are.
no wind monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of either site. The probability of this
condition ocouring was based on several interviews with U. S. Weather Service in LOS
Angeles during 1986 and !988.
The general characteristics of Santa Ana Wind conditions are well enough known where
similar wind/terrain relationships occur to indicate a high probability of "clear air" low
altitude turbulence in these locations.
Bell Canyon was rejected because it would have involved massive obstruction removal
beyond any reasonable funding capability to accomplish. The obstruction removal would
have been required for both the primary approach surface and most of the horizontal surface.
North Camp Pendleton was rejected because it would have required "contraflow" operations
imposed by the proximity of coastal ridges inland of the site. Aircraft would have had to
land to the North and take off to the South; an unworkable arrangement for a commercial
airport. The option of removing the terrain sufficiently was not realistic in light of the
extensive approach surface penetrations involved.
B. For reasons of grossly inadequate airspace:
.
.
4.
6.
Chino Airport in southwestern San Bernardino County;
Chino Hills in northeasteTM Orange County and southwestern San Bemardino
County;
Jurupa Hills in western San Bemardino County;
Norton Air Force Base (Joint Use) in western San Bemardino County;
Prado Dam in western Riverside County; and
Santa Monica Bay in westem Los Angeles County.
The first five sites were all impacted by the highly congested airspace conditions in the
Western Valley portion of Riverside and San Bemardino Counties. The airspace demands of
March Air Force Base; Norton Air Force Base (still a concern in spite of its closure as a
military base because it is being master planned as a commercial airport); Ontario
Intemational Airport; Chino Airport; Riverside Municipal Airport, Redlands Municipal
Airport and the Rialto Airport combine with heavy through traffic use of this airspace to
make the addition of another site virtually impossible. Establishment of any of the sites
considered would have diminished the capacity of one or more existing airports.
The Santa Monica Bay site impacLs heavily committed airspace because of the proximity to
Los Angeles International Airport and Santa Monica Municipal Airport. There is also a high
degree of airspace congestion because of airways along the Coast.
While all of the sites could have been physically designed to function as a commercial
airport, the degree of airspace congestion in their vicinity precluded their further
consideration.
I-4
C,
For reasons
congestion:
'ack of passenger capacity, low p~ get demand md/or airspace
..
le
,
Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos (All Civilian Use) in western
Orange County.;
Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos (Joint Use) in western Orange
County;
Bolsa Bay in westem Orange County;
March Air Force Base, Offset in west central Riverside County; and
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach in western Orange County.
The five sites eliminated during the middle phase of the Round II screening process were
dropped because they were ranked lower than any of the other sites in three criteria: 1) Site
Passenger Capacity; 2) Passenger Demand Served (for Orange County); and 3) Airspace
Both civilian and joint use of Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center; Bolsa Bay; and
the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach all failed to achieve a site capacity of more than
million annual passengers (MAP); served 25% or less of the Orange County demand
shortfall and exhibited poor or extremely poor performance in terms of Aix~ace Impacts.
Three additional sites performed poorly in two of the three criteria, but were retained for
further consideration during Round II.
D,
For reasons of low overall ranking in the Round II site screening:
2,
,
e
March Air Force Base (All Civilian Use, Medium Haul) in West Central
Riverside County;
Cfisfianitos Canyon 0ntemational) in southeastern Orange County;
Lakeview Mountains in southwestem Riverside County;
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro (All Civilian Use, Long Haul) in south
central Orange County;
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro (All Civilian Use, Medium Haul) in south
central Orange County;
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro ($oint Use, Medium Haul) in south central
Orange County; and
Signal Peak in west central Orange County.
The four highest ra, icir~g sites in the screening which took place on Suly 22, 1989 were: 1)
Potrero Los Pinos (Medium Haul); 2) Potrero Los Pinos (Long Haul); Norton Air Force
Base (Long Haul) and South Camp Pendleton (International). They were labeled Category 1
Sites: those which were the strongest candidates for Round 1TI consideration.
I-5
The .seven sites listed above were generally clustered in the bottom of the point distribution
(Category 1TI sites) and were eliminated from further consideration, barring some special
consideration during the preparation for Round Ill.
The remaining sites were placed in category 2: sites which could be considered for Round
III or not, depending upon their criteria performance in preparation for Round III. They
included: Los Angeles Harbor (International); March Air Force Base (Long Haul);
Cristianitos Canyon (Long and Medium Haul); Huntington Flats (Long Haul); and Palomar
Airport (Medium Haul).
h should be noted that there were several site clustered near the top of the points spread
and several clustered near the bottom; those in the middle tended to be rather close in point
spread.
E. For reasons of low overall evaluation in Round III site screening:
.
Cristianitos Canyon (Long Haul) in southeastern Orange County;
March Air Force Base (Long Haul) in west central Riverside County;
Palomar Airport in north coastal San Diego County; and
A general assessment of methodology changes was completed by the technical staff and, on
the basis of that analysis, the decision was made to drop the three sites because of their
performance.
The rationale for Cristianitos and March Air Force Base was to drop the version which
appeared to have the lowest performance potential in Round 1TI. In the case of March Air
Force Base, the point spread was so close between the Long Haul and Medium Haul
versions (30 points out of 957) that the Medium Haul version appeared stronger for Round
III. The same rationale prevailed for Cristianitos Canyon in favor of the Medium Haul
version as compared to the Long Haul alternative, although the Round H point score was
virtually the same (927.7 versus 927.1, respectively).
Palomar Airport was dropped for further consideration because of its significant lack of
capacity (just over 5 MAP) and very low service to Orange County (less than 1 MAP).
Palomar Airport's moderately good score in Round H was because, as a short haul facility,
its negative impacts are relatively slight.
F. For reasons of limited capacity and the shift of planning responsibility to SCAG:
I.
Huntington Flats (Long Haul) in westem Orange County; and
Los Angeles Harbor (Intemational) in. southwestern Los Angeles County.
The SCAG Regional Aviation System Study work program includes a task of re-examining
an offshore site which would supplant either the Huntington Flats and Los Angeles Harbor
sites. They each performed moderately in Round II, in large measure because their water
location reduces many negative impacts. The concept that is now being considered is to
I-6
combine an airport "h a large maritime facility on arr riade island somewhat further
out along the conu ,al shelf. This totally different co~, ,t, combined with the SCA(]
responsibility to conduct its evaluation, led to the decision ~o discontinue further analysis.
Norton Air Force Base (All Civilian Use) in western San Bemardino County was dropped
from timber consideration in this Program because a separate program to plan its use as a
civilian aixpon was authorized in conjunction with its closure as a mih'tary base.. Thus, it
will be a part of the Region's airport system eventually.
While Norton Air Force Base scored very well in Round H, its contribution to Orange
County's demand is open to question because the nature of the airport is now under a joint
venture planning responsibility by the City and the County of San Bernardino. This joint
effort is funded by the FAA.
G. In summary, the finalist sites for Round HI are a result of sites dropping out of
consideration for other than technical reasons and retaining what ~ to be the optimum
haul length version of rema/n/ng sites for consideration.
Since significant problems are associated with all sites, the choice became one of fielding a
selection of sites that represented the strongest contenders in light of the Consensus Team's
criteria. Additionally, from the beginning of the Program it has been know~lthat the greatest
capacity deficiency for Orange County will be in the medium and short haul categories.
Thia barn been reinforced by the Pa~enger Demand Allocation Subcommittee's findings.
Coherently, three of the four finalist sites are Medium Haul Length sites.
There axe recognized serious concerns about the finalist sites. Part of the purpose of this
Program and its Final Report is to document them. All such documentation will become
part of the Final Report.
It was considered particularly important to leave the record clear with respect to the only
sites in Orange County that have never been considered before: Potrero Los Pinos and
C~'tos Canyon. That is the reason, for example, that considerable effort was Placed in
documenting the environmental considerations for those sites.
South Camp Pendleton and Potrero Los Pinos remain as two of the three Category 1 sites.
from Round II (Potrero los Pinos appeared in two haul length versions among the Category
1 sites).
March Air Force Base was stronger as a Long Haul facility than as a Medium Haul airport
in Round H. Its finalist group recommendation as Medium Haul is based on its lower
impacts on the surrounding population, a consideration that has caused many of the
previously rejected sites to be dropped. The two versions were close in point score in
Round H. This site version also responds to the medium/short haul deficiencies.
Cristianitos Canyon, being a site without previous consideration in airport studies, was
included in Round Il in three haul lengths: International, Long Haul and Medium Haul.
Many of the same problems affect this site irrespective of haul length. However, the
I-7
Medium Haul version is one that is most responsive to co. as expressed thus far.
This site was ranked considerably higher in response to the criteria weighting originally
established by the concensus team, but dropped with the changes most recently established.
As with March AFB and Potrero Los Pinos, the Medium Haul Length version also responds
to the dominant passenger demand shortfall.
Comments regarding this site, including those from the City of San Clemente, (See
Appendix G), added emphasis to the already planned review of the site design, departure
pattern and qualitative criteria applicable to this site. The resultant analysis indicated that
there was merit in retaining the Medium Haul Version in Round ITl, but dropping the
s' .mlilarly ranked Long Haul Version.
In all cases, it is up to the Site Consensus Team to render its judgement on these sites and
their rmmking. That includes the possibility that the Team may recommend other sites to be
included in the f'malist group.
I-8
PART TWO: PROGRAM COMPLETION
o.
I. ROUND IN ~E EVALUATION AND PROGR~ COMPLETION
The final product of this Program will be a version of this report which ranks four finalist
'candidate sites, identifies the most significant obstacles confronting each site, and briefly
describes an Action Plan for follow-up by appropriate agencies.
The ranking process is similar to Round H, but the technical support for certain criteria have
been modified as described in Section II below. The modifications are in response to
concerns about some of the Round II technical data and methodology expressed by
Consensus Team members as well as more detailed analysis of the sites.
As discum~ at the July 22 Consensus Team meeting and described in Pan One of this
report, a decision has been made regarding the disposition of Category 2 sites. The decision
about carrying sites forward was predicated on overall responsiveness to the Round HI
criteria and acknowledgement of governmental decisions to take responsibility for studying
certain sites.
The Sites recommended for further evaluation in addition to category 1 sites include:
1. Cfistiamkos Canyon (Medium Haul) and
2. March Air Force Base (Medium Haul).
Although Norton Air Force Base was highly ranked in Round H, we recommend no further
analysis of this site because it is being actively planned now as a civilian airport as a
consequence of its military closure. It can be assumed to be a future component in the
regional ahl~rt system and will have some direct and indirect value to the Orange County
traveling public.
The remaining sites recommended for Round HI ranking include:
a. South Camp. Pendleton (International).
b. March Air Force Base (Medium Haul);
c. Potrero Los Pinos (Medium Haul);
d. Cristiamkos Canyon (Medium Haul);
With the far, king of the irmalist sites, documentation of Consensus Team comments,
refinement of the Draft Report and distribution of the Final Report to Program participants
and public agencies, the Program will be completed.
H-1
II. SUMMARY OF ~THODOLOGY CHANGES FOR. .fND III
The 21 recommended criteria and their weighting for site evaluation are the same as in
Round II, with some limited technical methodology changes.
Although thc Consultant Team explored more extensive changes in methodology, few
changes were made because of cost factors. Therefore, the focus in Round 1TI is upon
further technical improvements in response to Consensus Team comments and minor
methodology changes in response to the most serious concerns of the Consensus Team.
The status the methodology for each criterion is summarized below.
A. 1
Passenger Capacity of Site. No change in airspace analysis, which is a major factor
in capacity. All recommended finalist sites are evaluated at 80% of available air-
space capacity.
A.2
Passenger Demand Served. Passenger demand served is estimated as a range of
values (upper and lower limits) which results from calculating demand served in two
ways. Under the first approach, passenger demand served is estimated as it was in
Round II.
Under the second approach, passenger demand served is based on a model created by
the Passenger Demand Subcommittee. The model allocates passenger demand to all
sites currently in the region's airport system plus each candidate site as a single
addition to the system. The model is driven by distance from each Regional
Statistical Area, representing passenger locations and each airport. "Penalties" are
imposed as distance (hence, time and inconvenience) increases. Demand filters from
more convenient to less convenient sites as each site's capacity is reached, until all
demand is allocated somewhere.
The model methodology does not currently take into consideration transit service to
the sites, or variations in travel time for similar distances.
For purposes of allocation, under the second approach, the Regional airport system
includes all existing commercial airports likely to be used by air travelers, even if
they serve only a small percentage of Orange County passengers. Since the Site
Consensus Program involves portions of San Diego as well as much of the SCAG
region, Lindbergh Field in San Diego is included in the model, as is Palmdale in Los
Angeles County. Also, Norton Air Force Base is considered as part of the system
for allocation purposes because of its programmed conversion to a civilian facility.
II-2
A.3.
B.1
B.2
B.3.
B.4.
B.6.
Bo7.
Col.
Under the se t approach, a relatively remote sit, ~y not serve Orange County
passengers ck Ay to a large degree. However, fl, .mote site could serve
passengers who would otherwise consume capacity of sites located closer to Orange
County. This may happen with Palmdale and LAX; Norton and Ontario, for
example.
For purposes of this critexion, total demand allocation is derived from both methods
as described more completely in Pan V, Technical Report IH. Orange County
passenger demand served uses the Round H methodology for faulting purposes, but
records the range of the site allocations.
Air Cargo and General Aviation. No change.
Timetable for Development. No change.
Total Capital Costs. No basic change in methodology is used, but figures are
updated and revised according to Consensus Team con~nents, more detailed site
configurations, and changes in other cost generating criteria.
Local Support/Concerns. Local positions received since the previous meeting are
included.
Regional Support/Concerns. The measure is reworded in response to Consensns
Tenm comments.
,,
State Support/Concerns. Positions are summarized by agency, with an indication of
the difficulty involved in making a change.
National Support/Concerns. Positions are summarized by agency, with an indication
of the difficulty involved in making a change.
Grass Roots Support/Concerns. This criterion is proposed by a voluntary Grass Roots
Subcommittee to be dropped from the Round HI ravlring. Their'preference is to
replace the Round H methodology with some form of direct sample survey. A
minority report argues for using just projected population as the measure. Ravidng
runs are done showing the Grass Roots according to the measure used in Round H;
dropped completely; and according tO population numbers only. (See Appendix N) '
Aircraft Noise Impacts. Tltis criterion retains the 65dB CNEL contour as the basis
for estimating the population impacted. However, a .new contour has been generated
by Mestre-Greve Associates for Me.dium Haul category airports. This is based on a
mix of aircraft different from the John Wayne Airport contour used in Round H.
Population impacts are modified accordingly. For Cristianitos Canyon, a modified
straight out departure is described as an alternate to the turning departure contained in
the Round H analysis appears as an alternate. Neither version impacts residential
population in existing or approved developments. Thus, for this site, two noise
impact calculations are shown.
H-3
C.2o
Aircraft Accident .,k. No change, except for Cristiaru ~. The discussion of
implications of the nearby San Onofre Nuclear Generating Facility occurs now under
this criterion.
C.3. Surface Traffic Costs. No change in methodology, but refinements are included to
reflect more detailed site concepts.
C.4. Impact on Military. No change.
C.5. Airspace Impacts. No change, however additional discussion of possible airspace
improvements envisioned by FAA is included.
C.6.
Air Quality Impacts. No change in base data. The measure is changed to reflect a
combination of tons of pollutants per year and the number of days on which ozone
standards are exceeded. This tends to penalize sites which have worse air quality
conditions already.
Co7.
Flora and Fauna. Refine to reflect Consensus Team comments and incorporate
County of Orange Master Environmental Assessment data where it goes beyond State
Natural Diversity Maps in detail.
C.8. Human Health Hazards. No change.
C.9. Water Systems Impacts. No change.
C. IO. Socio-economic Benefits. No change.
C. 11. Socio-economic Costs. No change.
H-4
PART ..tREE: ROUND III DECi,..ON SUMMARY
I. SUMMARY SCRIFrION OF THE FINDINGS
~ section presents the round IH summary evaluation of the four finalist candidate sites:
Potrero Los Pinos, South Camp Pendleton; Cristianitos Canyon; and March Air Force Base.
Part Four presents a discussion of each site and commentary on the criteria for each.
For purposes of documentation, Part Five, Technical Report HI, presents a complete
description of the methodology. It is the Round II methodology as modified by the changes
summarized in Part Two of this report.
The findings of the Round IH evaluation are summarized in Table IH-l, Summary of Round
HI Candidate Site Evaluation. Quantifiable measures are provided for the same criteria as in
Round II. Qual/tative estimates for non-quantified criteria are based on descriptions
conta/ned in the Table ITI-2, Defini,'fion of Qualitative Values.
The site ranking shown in Table IH-3 is based on all applicable criter/a, using the measure
values developed for the Round III analysis,
Because there are different views on the qualitative and some quantitative measures, more
than one ravlring has been calculated. Alternative rar~king tables are included in the
November 18 meeting notification package.. These rax~king summaries reveal that only slight
differences occur in the r/miring order with variations in the criteria included in each ravklng
rim.
Tables HI-3 and HI-4 present the ravklng results.
It should be noted that these two tables indicate the same raoking, but with a different point
distribution.
Table IH-3 (Baseline Ravking) is based on the I to 100 point scale used in Round H, but
adjusted to a point scale involving only four sites.
Table IH-4 (Baseline Judgmental) is based on a combination of 1 to 100 point scale
calculations where the measure differentials are reasonably spaced, but modifying the point
scale where the measure distribution is very skewed. For example, with Timetable for
development, three sites would get 100 points for being available in the year 2010 and one
would get a score of 1 for being five years earlier (See Table IH'-3). In Table IH-4, the
Baseline is adjusted so that only a 2:5 point spread differentiates the sites, with no site
receiving either a 1 or a 100 point score.
Review of these tables will show that they result in the same ranking, but the point scores
are closer together in the Baseline Judgmental version.
IH-1
Z
0
Z
::3
0
0
slu~oa 8 8 .~ 8
·
oo~-~, o -
slu!oa - - -
::~ slu~oa
..................
:,:.: .,:.:.:.?:
........
:::::::::::::::::::::
...,~.............. ~
======================
...................
:.:,:.:....-...:.
Z
Z~
JZ
0
0
[II-3
0
ouJ
0
0
ii oo~-~, " " ~ 8
slu!oa .-
':... :......;.~:.
~;?~ slu~od -
slu~oa - -
,...,...,....
::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~
':':':':':':':':':':':
.... ;'"~'ffi'i ....
0 ~ ~ 0
,--.__ ~ ~ ~ .__
....................
...~' .:.: :......;.;..
"":'. :-:5:
Z
.-iZ
·
.t
o o
,,--,,
C)
o
--
1]~-10
m~, ..mm o Q~ a,) G; :::C
o ,-, ~ -
-o · o° ~,.~
,a-
l
· '~ I
o o
z ---
o
c:)
[[[-11
I~-12
o
Z Z 0 0
Z Z
1~-13
I
I
I
lm
c~,
,0
PART FOUR:. ROUND III SITE ANALYSIS SUMMARIES
Guide to Part IV
PART FOUR: ROUND I~ si'rE ANALYSIS
Pa~e
I. THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIYE ...................... IV-1
me
1. South Camp Pendleton ........................... IV-4
2. March AFB ................................... V-15
3. Potreros Los Pinos ............................... V-24
4. Cristiani~os Canyon .............................. V-36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
IV-1 Airport Site Reference Map ............................... IV-3
IV-2 Land Sat Pendleton .................................... IV-5
IV-3 Site Map Pendleton .................................... IV-6
IV-4 Site Concept Plan Pendleton .............................. IV-7
IV-5 Land Sat March AFB ...... , ............................ IV-16
IV-6 Site Map March AFB .................................. IV- 17
IV-7 Land Sat Potrero ..................................... IV-25
IV-8 Access Map Potrero ................................... IV-26
IV-9 Site Map Potrero ..................................... IV-27
IV-10 Site Concept Plan Potrero ................................. IV-28
IV-11 Land Sat Cristianitos ................................... IV-37
IV-12 Site Map Cristianitos ................................... IV-38
IV-13 Ske Concept Plan Cristiamtos ............................. IV-39
I. THE REGIt, .,L PERSPECTIVE
The analysis of candidate sites throughout the Site Consensus Program has been oriented
toward evaluating each possible site on its merits relative to certain criteria deemed
important in the screening process.
That orientation is carried through in Round HI. In the following sections each of the four
remaining candidate sites is summarized according to the site evaluation criteria established
in Round H and retained for Round ITt. In Part Five, the technical analysis and
methodology used in Round HI are described more fully for each site.
Regional setting
An overall observation can be made about the finalist sites from a somewhat differem
perspective, however, in view of their respective locations.
In terms of overall growth pattems in Southern California and the related distribution of
existing commercial airports, Orange, San Diego and Riverside Counties can be looked at
together as a coherent region for considering commercial air ~nation needs. In Fact,
an attempt was made to link the SCAG and San Diego County site search efforts prior to
beginning this Program at the urging of the Western Region FAA office, but this attempt
failed. Moreover, there is a long standing orientation in both the SCAG and San Diego
regions m view these territories separately. Yet geography, development patterns and
future air passenger, demand increases argue for a combined approach.
The four siu~s form a rough arc from western Riverside County fl~-ough southeastern
Orange County and into coastal northern San Diego County. This arc passes through the
Cleveland National Forest (Santo Aha Mounufins) and curves down fl~ou~ the huge land
mass of Camp Pendleton.
The general growth pattems shaping this entire area can be described as follows:
Ae
New growth in San Diego County is expanding north along the coast and iv. land
through the central valley from the metropolitan core in the south;
Be
New growth in Riverside County is filling in existing communities in the west end
of the County and is moving rapidly south through the same valley system
experiencing part of the growth moving northward from San Diego County;
C~
New growth in Orange County is moving southerly along the coast and inland
valleys, even including some of the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains.
In short, the new growrt. :onverging on this imaginary arc ~ .~ which the candidate
sites are located. While there will certainly be significant additional growth elsewhere in
this region, most of the newly developed areas anticipated by the year 2010 will be
moving toward the point where Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties join. This is
the same area in which vast development barriers such as the Cleveland 'National Forest
and Camp Pendleton are located.
There are no commercial airports providing short, medium and long haul or international
air passenger service within this burgeoning tern'tory. If one were to focus a search for a
commercial site on a location that had the best service potential for the entire southern
portion of the Southern California Region, this would be the'logical area to investigate.
Added to this geographic focus is the generally recognized orientation towards minimizing
airport impacts on surrounding populations. This was clearly .a priority in the criteria
weighting system eventually approved by the Site Consensus Team. Airport impacts, in
fact, are weighted far more heavily, on the whole, than are factors of air passenger service.
Taken together, these considerations suggest that some place near the convergence of these
three Counties would be the optimum location for a new commercial airport. Three of the
four sites are very close to that point. March Air Force Base, the only site on the inland
side of the Santa Arm Mountain system, is somewhat removed, but is still close to the
inland growth areas, particularly within Riverside and San Diego Counties; it is not so
conveniently located with respect to Orange County because of the access barrier presented
by the Santa Ana Mountains.
While "Regional Setting" is not a criterion in the site evaluation, this larger view of how
the candidate sites relate to growth patterns and development constraints in the entire
region is important, and provides the basis for the recommendation to retain all four finalist
sites as possibilities for further consideration by responsible governmental and private sector
interests.
South Camp Pendleton {Internationai)
SITE SUMMARIES
South Camp Pendleton (International)
General Location and Description
The site is located in the foothills of San Diego County between Oceanside
and San Clemente. It is currently used as a training facility for the USMC.
The proposed airport would require relocation of existing uses from the
southern portion of Camp Pendleton to the northern portion.
SPECIFICATIONS
·
Haul Length
Terminal Location
Runway Length
Access
. \
Stuxounding Areas
Intonational
· Between two newly
constructed runways in the
southem portion of Camp
Pendleton.
· Primary - Two 11,000-foot
parallel runways, 4,300 feet
Secondary - 9,300 feet
· Primary -
· ~cgondarv - Acc~s road
· City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
City of Vista
County of San Diego
SAN
SOUTH CAMP PENDLETON
CANDIDATE SITE
INTERNATIONAL
NOT TO SCALE
~T~~ THE
PLANNIN
CENTER
1300 0(~ '~/~EE"r S~,JTE ~
FIGURE IV
ee ~tl eeo Fill~.*
· td'au~ iI
~ · oe°
LE'~END
~ Runway
· · Airport Boundary
'~ Te~ina Ama
eeee 65 dB CNEL
~1 Typical Departure Direction
Typical Arrival' Direction
7~ Restricted Airspace
SOUTH CAMP PENDLETON
CANDIDATE SITE
INTERNATIONAL .OT ~o sc^~
PLANNIN
CENTER
~ / '3aO IDOVE STI~EET S~ITE
FIGURE IV
~z
\
Re
Souh, amp Pendleton ~Internationai~
Site Concepts and Alternatives
· .
South Camp Pendleton differs from the other finalist sites in that several alternate
locations within Camp Pendleton have been suggested for consideration by Site
Consensus Team members. The analysis used in ravking this site is based on the
Smart Mesa location with all related facilities on-site. While this original location
is the one evaluated and ranked in Round III, the altemate possibilities merit
discussion. All are feasible from an engineering standl~int but each one has
different cost, airport operations, military impact and environmental impact
characteristics.
One variation is to move the runway system generally to the west so that it extends
over Interstate 5 and the railroad and beyond into the ocean. This configuration
would require lowering both the Coast Highway and the railroad, and would involve
significant earthwork and breakwater structures to extend the runways into the ocean
to roughly the 50 foot depth contour. This version appears to have less potential
impact on the existing military facilities and operations than the original site. It
would also involve substantial offshore construction costs and ocemx/beach impacts.
A second alternative is to locate the runways in a fiat "X" pattem along and
extending out from the shoreline at one of several locations along the Base, with a
breakwater system to provide protection. This variation would disturb only a
portion of the Base oceanward of the Interstate 5,. but would obviously involve
substantial offshore construction and related ocean/beach impacts. This configuration
would require significant crosswind operations, a feature that is not looked upon
with favor by airport planners. A similar configuration entirely on land was
explored by the Technical Team, but was not brought forward for consideration for
that reason.
A third alternative is to locate a site in the Las Pulgas area of Camp Pendleton,
roughly midway along the Base coastline. Two variations are possible in this
location: one entirely inland of Interstate 5 and another, sixnilar to the first altema-
tive discussed above, which is partly on land and partly extends into the Ocean.
This location would have minimal impact on adjacent communities because the site
would be ten miles or more from any existing community. Impacts on Marine
operations have not been assessed, but they could be even more severe than the
southem location. .
..
In any case, a concept that 'should be included as pan of any further consideration
of a site on Camp Pendleton is the remote location of terminal facilities of the Base
so that the development typically attracted around such an airport would not occur
on land now controlled by the Marine Corps. Rather, any such development would
be located on privately owned land along access routes to the site. Transit
connections would link the terminals to aircraft passenger gates adjacent to the
runways. This concept would contribute to the desire by SANDAG and its member
San Diego County jurisdictions to retain the existing separation afforded by Camp
e
.
South Camp Pendleton (International)
Pendlcton between the San Diego region and the greater Los Angeles/Orange
County arem It would also reduce impacts on the Marine Corps functions in the
vicinity of the airport and throughout the rest of the coastal strip of the Base.
Major obstacles to the establishment of a site in this location include:
· Long standing and vehement opposition by the Marine Corps and Department
of Defense because of potential impacts on the Marine Corps training
mission;
· Long standing and vehement opposition by the regional and local govem-
ments in San Diego County;
· Significant environmental impacts, regardless of which site variation is
involved; and
airspace areas.
· The need to sigrfificantly modify existing Restricted
Criteria Performance Summaries
A.I' Passenger Capacity of Site
Measure:
Points:
· Comments:
33.8 MAP
100
High site capacity is dependent on modifications to restricted
airspaces.
Orange County Passenger Demand Served (% and MAP)
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
43% (6.4 MAP)
10
See Part Five, Section A.2 for discussion.
A3: Air Cargo and General Aviadon Service
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Both
100
Accommodates air cargo flights and general aviation flights.
IV-9
B.I : IImetable for Airport Development
South ..amp Pendleton (International)
M~a~e:
Points:
Comments:
2010
25
Two years timetable for airport sponsorship and funding; two
years timetable for airport master planning and special studies;
thr~e years timetable for environmental processing; two years
for land acquisition and facih'ties design; ten y~ars timetable
for Military relocation and airport/access construction. This
timetable also assumes that the airport development process
begins in year 1990, and that some requirements occur
simultan~usly.
B.2: Total Capital Costs of Development per Passenger
Points:
Comments:
$58 per passenger, $6.5 b~hon total cost
2
290 ion cu. y~. of material moved for pr~afing the
affpon site. Some Marine acti~ties ~ocated on-site.
B 3 : Local Support/Concerns
Mea~re:
Points:
Comments:
2
50
This criterion measures formal opposition to a particular site
by local jurisdiction in its vicinity. There were 2 in number.
B.4 : Regional Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
SCAG - Yes; SANDAG - No
1
This site is located within the SANDAG region. SANDAG
strongly opposes a site within Camp Pendleton. The site is
not in conffi~ ~ SCAG policy and is out of its jurL~cfion.
B_~: State Support/Concerns
Points:
Comments:
Yes
100
This site is in compliance with State laws, regulations and
policies.
IV-10
South Camp Pendleton (International)
B.6 : National Support/C. oncerns
Points:
Comments:
No
1
The command at Camp Pendleton has resisted any civilian
commercial aviation use within the. base because of the impact
on the mih'tary mission. A letter received from the
Department of the Navy affmns this position.
B.7: Grass Roots Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
1,340
100
See Part Five, Section B-7 for discussion.
C.I' Aircraft Noise Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
0
100
No residents impacted within 65 CNEL contour.
C.2: Aircraft Accident Risk
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
200 acres
100
Minimal impact because of distance from non-military areas.
C.3: Surface Traffic Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Level of Service: F
1
Surface traffic impacts consider several factors including the
number of the .wips generated by the employees of the airport,
and employees resulting from commercial and industrial
development drawn to locate in the airport vicinity rather than
elsewhere in the region (as taken into account in current
employment projections.) Traffic impacts could be
significantly reduced by limiting employment related
development in the vicinity of the airport. See the concept
description in Section A.2 above.
South ~amp Pendleton (International)
For Round HI analysis, the measure of traffic impact combines
potential arterial impacts into a "system-wide" impact
assessment. The system-wide measure compares the total
projected traffic volumes along all major impacted arterial
segments to total system capacity to provide an overall
assessment of system utilization. This comparison is expressed
in terms of Level of Service (LOS) which is a qualitative
description of traffic flow conditions based on a comparison of
traffic volume to roadway capacity. The measures of LOS
describe traffic conditions ranging from free flowing to severe
congestion.
The LOS for this site are noted below:
LOS without Aixpon
F
LOS with Airport in
Year 2010 Conditions
F
LOS Total (Air pon & Related
Development in Year 2010 Conditions
F
LOS A/ter All Mitigation Measures
· are Applied
F
C.4: Impact on the Military
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
Development on South Camp Pendleton of a civilian airport
could force the closure or severely limit the capability of the
Marine Corps airfield and could shut down air-sea-land training
mission. This proposal would also restrict air access to
training areas, landing beach and parachute drop zones.
C.$: Airspace Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Excellent
100
High capacity and no flight path conflicts; this condition is
accomplished, however, because the site evaluation assumes
that part of-the cost is relocating the existing base airfield as
well as absorbing the general aviation activity from Fallbrook
Airport and purchasing that facility.
IV-12
C.6: Air Quality Impacts
South Can..
,'endleton (Internationai)
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
172.130 air'quality factor units
100
The large amount of pollutant generation is offset by only 7
days per year on which ozone standards are exceeded.
C. 7: Flora and Fauna Impacts
Measttre:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
The site is a wildlife refuge and considerable wildlife research
is done on-site. The site is home tO sensitive animal species,
some of which are listed as endangered. The site impacts
three sensitive habitats; supports 16 sensitive animal species;
and seven sensitive plant species.
C.8: Human Health Exposure to Hazards
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
No increase
100
Replacement of portions of South Camp Pendleton with an
airport use would not significantly increase the level of
exposure to human health hazards.
C.9: Water Systems Impacts
Mea~ll-~:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
The design of this site would eliminate approximately 23 acres
of streamcourse riparian habitat and between 100 and 200 acres
of wetlands. The issuance of a required 404 permit for this
site is considered very difficult and the creation of a new
wetland of equal quality, and size would probably be a
mitigation requirement.
C.10: Socioeconomic
Point:
Comments:
C.11: Socioeconomic
Points:
Comments:
Sour ,~amp Pendleton (International)
Benefits
$437 ion
65
F~ors in the measure: emplo~ent increase 91~, employ-
ment decrease 0, co~~on ~p~ $1,298 ~on, to~
~u~d econo~c $586 ~on. T~n~on benefit $-
149 million. (minus indicates a longer drive than to alternative
airpon)
Co~$
msh
50
This site would induce significant changes in the character of
development on-site, along I-5 and in the City of Oceanside.
Oppommity costs would also occur since expanded operational
facilities, rnih~ housing and military airfield operating of the
base would not be implemented. Fallbrook (general aviation)
Airport would have to be closed down. This site would also
adversely affect a bird sanctuary, Indian burial site and
environmental-significant open space areas.
IV-14
B. March AFB (CU)--Medium Haul
1. General Location and DescriptiOn
The site is currently a military Air Base located in Riverside County between the cities of
Moreno Valley and Pen'is. The proposed airport would require all military functions to be
located off-site.
SPECIFICATIONS
Haul Length
Terminal Location
Runway Length
Access
Surrounding Areas
Medium Haul
· East side of site
· 16,500 feet
· Primary - Van Buren/215
· Secondary_ - Cactus Road
· City of Pen'is
City of Moreno Valley
City of Riverside
Unincorporated PAverside
County
MARCH AFB
LONG HAUL
(ALL CIVILIAN USE)
CANDIDATE SITE
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING
FIGURE IV-5
LEGEND
m Runway
~ · Airport Boundary
· ~ Terminal Area
--- 60 dB CNEL
MARCH AFB
LONG
cee 65 dB CNEL
e Typical Oepmture Direction
Typical Arrival Direction
Restricted Airspace
(ALL CIVILIAN USE)
HAUL CANDIDATE SITE
JTHE
PLANNING
FIGURE IV-6
· :ch AFB ~CU)--Medium Haul
2. Site Concept
Since this is an existing air' facility, no modification is proposed to the basic physical
arrangement of the facilities. A passenger terminal would have to be added. Owing to
space limitations between the nmways and the Route 215 Freeway/railroad fights-of-way, a
site east of the runways would probably work best. Since the site is fiat and no runway
changes are identified, a more detailed concept plan has not been prepared for this site.
Though analyzed as a medium haul airport, the existing runways would permit long haul
operations if that market were to be developed and the impacts on surrounding areas were
acceptable.
3. Major Obstacles
Major obstacles to the establishment of a site at this location include:
Severe impact upon and vehement long standing opposition to this site by
the Air Force and Depamnent of Defense because of the importance of this
facility to the military mission. This factor has recently been given added
emphasis because of the closure of Norton Air Force Base and planned
relocation of certain functions to March AFB.
· Strong local political opposition to the closure and relocation of the military.
Significant impacts On the immediately adjacem cities of Moreno Valley and
Perris, including the largest potential noise impacts of any of the four finalist
sites.
Distance from the Orange County market, with unusunlly high levels of
congestion along available routes, particularly during peak hours.
4. Criteria Performance Summaries
A.I : Passenger Capacity of Site
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
5O
Map exceeds ail demand projections for the site
A.2: Orange County Passenger Demand Served (% and MAP)
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
43% (6.3 MAP)
1
See Part Five, Section A.2 for discussion
IV-18
Marc,, AFB (CU)--Medium Haul
A3 : Air Cargo and General Aviation Service
Points:
Comments:
Both
100
Accommodates air cargo and general aviation flights
B.I' Timetable for Airport Development
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
2010
25
Two years timetable for airport sponsorship and funding; two
years timetable for airport master planning and special studies;
three years timetable for environmental processing; two years
for land acquisition and facilities design; ten years timetable
for Military relocation and airport/access construction. This
timetable also assumes that the airport development process
begins in year 1990, and that some requirements occur
simultaneously.
Total Capital Costs of Development per
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
$38 per passenger, $3.28 billion total cost
44
The mih'tary would be relocated and the site. purchased from
the U.S. government
B 3 : Local Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
,,
100
This criterion measures formal opposition to a particular site
by local jurisdiction in its vicinity. There were none.
B.4: Regional Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
No
1
NQt consistent with SCAG policy.
IV-19
,~,r, ch AFB (C'U)--Medium Haul
B,q: State Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Yes
This site appears to be in compliance with State laws,
regulations and policies.
B.6 : National Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:.
Comments:
No
In conflict with DOD policies because it interferes with the
military mission.
B.7: Grass Roots Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
1343
100
Discussion in Part Five, Section B.7.
C.1: Aircraft Noise
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
9
90
Very smatl number of residents impacted within 65 CNEL
contour. The generic medium contour is smaller than the
contour used in Round H.
C.2: Aircraft Accident Risk
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
16,600 acres
1
No change from Round H.
C.3: Surface Traffic Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Level'of Service:. E
2O
Surface traffic impacts consider, several factors including the
number of the trips generated by the employees of the airport,
and employees resulting from commercial and industrial
development drawn to locate in the airport vicinity rather than
elsewhere in the region (as taken into account in current
employment projections.) Traffic impacts could be reduced by
scaling back employment related uses.
IV-20
Marc,. AFB ~CU)--Medium Hau!
For Round IXI analysis, the measure of traffic impact combines
potential arterial impacts into a "system-wide" impact
assessment. The system-wide measure compares the total
projected uaffic volumes along all major impacted arterial
segments to total system capacity to provide an overall
assessment of system utilization. This comparison is expressed
in terms of Level of Service (LOS) which is a qualitative
description of traffic flow conditions based On a comparison of
traffic volume to roadway capacity. The measures of LOS
describe traffic conditions ranging 'from free flowing to severe
congestion.
The LOS for this site are noted below:
LOS without Airport
C
LOS with Airport in
Year 2010 Conditions
D
LOS Total (Airport & Related
Development in Year 2010 Conditions
LOS After All Mitigation Measures
are Applied
E
C.4: Impact on the Military
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
A March AFB civilian airport would completely dislocate
military operations from the base.
C.$: Airspace Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Excellent
100
Excellent, even if military reserve squadrons are retained.
.__ .,'ch AFB (CU)-~Medium Haul
C.6: Air Quality Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
1,726,200
1
The exmm~ly high number for this measure is a consequence
of the 137 days per year in which ozone standards are
C.7: Flora and Fauna Imtntcts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Medium
50
The site is within range of the sensitive Stephens' kangaroo
rat. If no additional areas will be converted, the impact
measure would become minimal to insignificant. There are
also sensitive plant and animal species which may occur on the
site.
C.8: Human Health Exposure to Hazards
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Moderate
33
Although there is a high level of hazardous/toxic material
already associated with the base, commercial use would
increase development and expand human exposure to hazards.
C.9: Water Systems Impacts
Meamlre~
Points:
Comments:
Medium
75
The design of this site would eliminate appro~ely 3.6 acres
of streamcourse habitat from the site. A Section 404 permit
would be required and a 1600 Agreement should not be
dit~cult to reach.
IV-22
C. I O : Socioeconomic
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
C.11: Socioeconomic
Measure:
Points:
·
Comments:
Mar ,FB (CU)--Medium Haul
Benefits
Minus $126 million
1
Factors in the measure include: employment increase 7000,
employment decrease 7900, construction impact $409 million,
total annualized economic impact -$4 million. Transportation
benefit is - $122 million (minus indicates a longer drive than
an alternate airport).
Costs
Low
100
There is already a basic accommodation of aircraft use in light
of Base operations. Some intensification along Route 15E is
expected with development of this site. Other existing and
planned uses in the airport vicinity would not be altered
significantly.
IV-23
C. Potrero Lo los (Medium Haul)
le
General Location and Description
The site is located at. an elevation of 2,900 ft. approximately two. miles nora
of the San Mateo Canyon W'fldemess Area, entirely within the Cleveland
National Forest. It lies between the cities of Elsinore and San Juan
Capistrano and the community of Coto de Caza.
Haul Length
Terminal Location
SPECIFICATIONS
Terminals will'be located
offsite at the intersection of
Ortega Highway and the
Foothill Transportation
Corridor, with access
provided by monorail
8200 feet
6100 feet
Access
Surrounding Areas
· ~- Elevated monorail
connecting Airport to the
Foothill Transportation
Corridor
· Service - Ortega Hwy
City of Dana Point
City of Mission Viejo
City of San Clemente
City of San Juan Capistrano
Unincorporated Orange
County
POTRERO LOS PINOS AIRPORT SITE
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING
CENTER
~:~000V~ STREE~ SUITE ~0
FIGURE IV-7
MONOrAIL/ACCESS ROUTES
.
POTRERO LOS PI~OS AIRPORT SITE
FIGURE IV-8
LEGEND
=~ Runway
m · AJ~o~ Boun~mny
,,~ Terminal Area
-- 60 dB CNEL
POTRERO LOS
e.* 65 dB CNEL'
4 Typica~ Departure Direction
Typical Arrival Dimclion
PINOS AIRPORT SITE
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING
FIGURE IV-9
ooo8
= ero Los Pinos ~Medium Haul)
2. Site Concep~ and Alternatives
This site occupies a ridge on the westerly flank of the Santa Ana Mountains within the
Cleveland National Forest. Because of the severe terrain, no alternative concept is
proposed, although a Long Haul option does exist with notably greater site impacts.
The most significant aspect of the concept for this site is its treaunent as a "land based
aircraft carrier". That is, the site would contain only what is essential to directly support
the aircraft operations on the runway; all other support facilities, including the passenger
terminal, would be located offsite and outside of the National Forest Preserve. The
proposed general location for the airport access complex is along the Foothill Transporta-
tion Corridor where it crosses Ortega. Highway.
Two access systems are proposed: 1) a high-speed monorail of approximately six miles in
length for passenger service paralleling Ortega Highway and connecting to the site via a
canyon off San Juan Creek; and 2) a service road joining the site higher up along Ortega
Highway where less difficult grades exist between the Highway and the site.
The essence of this concept is to keep the amount of development and natural disturbance
associated with the airport to the absolute minimum within the Cleveland National Forest
and the adjacent Caspers Regional Park.
A non-physical aspect of this concept is the inclusion of a Forest Management Fund as an
integral part of the site package. The basic idea is to generate funds from airport profits
to be invested in the environmental enhancement and management of the Cleveland
National Forest and adjacent nature preserves. This is above and beyond immediate site
mitigation requirements. It would irrevocably tie a portion of the revenue flows from the
aixport to investment in the natural resources, their access, preservation and management.
This concept is similar to the Hudson River preserves associated with highway construction
decades ago in New York State and more recently in California as part of highway
f'mancing programs which include open space acquisition as well as highway route
establishment.
The concept differs, however, with respect to the added operational and management intent
of the funding package. There is growing evidence that additional funds are needed for
adequate management and maintenance of our national recreation areas. The result is
overextended staff, damaged natural resources and habitats, diminishing recreational value
and ever more cosily rehabilitation needs. This concept envisions the airport as a profit
center which funds the permanent enhancement of this significant resource area at a level
that will certainly never be committed by conventional programs.
This is not to diminish the impact if the Potrero site were to be established. Its impacts in
the immediately vicinity of the site would be particularly significant. So, would be the
potential for long-term overuse of the Cleveland National Forest as the surrounding area
IV-29
Potr~ ~,os Pinos (Medium Haul),
develops. The public policy issue to be resolved is whether or not acceptable tradeoffs are
possible within this context.
3. Major Obstacles
Major obstacles to the establishment of a site at this location include:
.
Location within and impacts upon the Cleveland National Forest.
Opposition by a local representative of the Department of Agriculture and
several nearby cities.
The magnitude of immediate site impacts on natural habitats and recreational
environments.
Remoteness from established or planned high capacity access routes.
Uniqueness of the site concept and resultant resistance by airport interests'
accustomed to more conventional approaches.
15.4 MAP
50
Criteria performance Summaries
A.1: Passenger Capacity of Site
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
A.2: Orange County Passenger Demand Served (% and MAP)
Measure: 50% (7.4 MAP)
Points: 100
Comments: See Part Five, Section A.2 for discussion.
A3: Air Cargo and General Aviation Service
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
General Aviation Service
50
Accommodates general aviation flights. Cannot accommodate
all-cargo flights due to limited access by freight trucks.-
IV-30
~ ,~ro Los Pinos tMedium Haul)
B.~l' 2'imetable for Airport Development
Mcastlr¢~
Points:
Comments:
2010
25
One year timetable for airport sponsorship and funding; two
years timetable for airport master planning and special studies;
four years timetable for environmental processing; three years
for land acquisition and facilities design; eight years timetable
for airport/access construc~on. This timetable also assumes
that the airport development process begins in year 1990, and
that some requkements occur simultaneously.
Total Capital Costs of Development per Passenger
Points:
Comments:
$59 per passenger, $6.33 billion total cost
1
Principle costs include site preparation, airport construction,
187 million cu. yds. cut and fill.
B 3 : Local Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
4
1
This criterion measures formal opposition to a particular site
by local jurisdiction in its vicinity. There were 4 in number.
B.4: Regional Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
No Formal Position
50
There is no SCAG policy on this site because it has never
been considered before.
B ~ : State
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Yes
100
State considerations axe not applicable since the site is on
Federal land. There will be an impact on State Route 74
(Ortega Highway) which will require significant state
involvement.
Potre~ ~os Pinos ~Medium Haul).
B.6 : National Support/Concerns
Meam.ffe:
Points:
Comments:
No
1
A withdrawal permit would be required. The Site is opposed
by the Depatm~ent of Agriculture. As communicated by a
local Forest Service Ranger representating the department.
B.7: Grass Roots Support/Concerns
Measure: 1,650
Points; 74
Comments:
C.l' Aircraft Noise Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
0
100
No residents impacted within 65 CNEL contour including
existing and approved developments.
C.2: Aircraft Accident Risk
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
4,500 acres
73
The intensity and extent of development potential within the
risk zone is relatively limited because of the site's remoteness.
C.3: Surface 2Yaffic Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Level of Service: A
100
Surface traffic impacts consider several factors including the
number of the trips generated by the employees of the airport,
and employees resulting from commercial and industrial
development drawn to locate in the airport vicinity rather than
elsewhere in the region (as taken into account in current
employment projections.)
For Round Ill analysis, the measure of traffic impact combines
potential arterial impacts into a "system-wide" impact
assessment.. The system-wide measure compares the total
projected traffic volumes along all major impacted arterial
segments to total system capacity to provide an overall
assessment of system utilization. This comparison is expressed
in terms of Level of Service (LOS) which is a qualitative
IV-32
1==. ..to Los Pinos (Medium Haul}
description of traffic flow conditions based on a comparison of
tra~c volume to roadway capacity. The measures of LOS
· describe traffic conditions ranging from free flowing to severe
congestion.
The LOS for this site are noted below:
LOS without Aixport
A
LOS with Aixpon in
Year 2010 Conditions
A
LOS Total (Airport & Related
Development in Year 2010 Conditions
A
LOS After All Mitigation Measures
are Applied
A
Traffic conditions differ for this sRe in comras~ with others in
the finai~ grouping because it proposes monorail access for
passengers.
C.4: Impact on the Military
Measure:
Poinus:
Commen~:
None
100
Commercial use would not impede mih'tary missions~
C.$: Airspace Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Excellent
100
High capacity and no flight path conflicts.
C.6: Air Quality
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
516,600.
'/7 ' °~
The moderate rating is because of the 41 day per year on
which ozone standards are exceeded.
IV-33
Potrero Los Pinos (Medium Haul).
C.7: Flora and Fauna Impacts
Me a~lf e ~
Points:
Comments:
1
The site is located within the Cleveland National Forest, one of
the most significant natural resource areas in Southern
California. There are 14 sensitive biological resources
occurring on the site and/or in the vicinity of the project area.
Of these, six are plant species, six animal, and two are
sensitive habitats. On-site verification is required. A costly
environmental enhancement program ($105 million dollars
initially, with added annual increments) is proposed as an
integral part of this site concept.
C.8: Human Health Exposure to Hazards
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Slight
66
An increase in hazardous and toxic substances would occur on
this currently vacant site; however, the Cleveland National
Forest would separate the site from population centers.
C.9: Water Systems Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
This project site would eliminate approximately 9.3 acres of
streamcourse habitat from the site. An additional 2 acres of
removal would be required off-site to allow aircraft clearance
of nearby mountain peaks. A 404 Permit would be required
and, due to the undisturbed nature of the habitat, the permit
would be difficult to obtain. Creating an equal size and
quality riparian habitat on-site, as a mitigation option, would
be nearly impossible due to the rough terrain. However, see
the flora and fauna discussion above. Compensating off-site
mitigation may be feasible with money from the enhancement
fund.
C. I O :' Socioeconomic Benefits
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
$750 million
100
Factors in the measure: employment increase 8800, employ-
ment decrease 0, construction impact $2,152 million, total
annualized economic $710 million. Transportation benefit $41
million.
IV-34
l-~,,~ero Los Pinos (Medium Haul)
C.11: Socioeconomic Costs
Poims:
Comments:
· Severe
1
This site is located along a very visual ridge in the Cleveland
National Forest, east of Caspers Regional Park. It is with/n a
portion of the Natural Pre,serve containing significant features.
The natural serenity of this portion of the Forest would be
permanently blighted and the passive recrentional value of this
area, including Caspers Regional Park, would be severely
impacted.
IV-35
C. Cristianitos Canyon--Medium Haul
1. General Location and Description
This site is located in the South Orange County Foothills between Dana Point, Mission
Viejo and San Clemente. The site is also located approximately 7.5 miles from the San
Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). A large
part of the site is currently being utilized by ford .Aerospace as an ordinance testing
facility.
SPECIFICATIONS
Haul Length ·
Terminal Location ·
Runway Lengths ·
Access
Surrounding Areas
Medium Haul
6,800 feet
5,600 feet
· Primary- Foothill
Transportation Corridor
· Secondary- Avenido Pico
City of Dana Point
City of Mission Viejo
City of San Clemente
City of San Juan Capistrano
Unincorporated Orange
County
IV-36
CRISTIANITOS CANYON
CANDIDATE SITE
MEDIUM
HAUL
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING
FIGURE IV- 11
STATE BEACH
$~n Mateo ~t
San
Nuclear Generating Station
LEGEND
m Runway '-- 60.dB CNEL
· · Airport Boundary ~' 65 dB CNEL
*=~ Telminal Area ~ Typical Departure Direction
CRISTIANITOS CANYON MEDIUM
CANDIDATE SITE'
Altemative Departure Direction
Typical Arrival Direction
Restricted Airspace
HAUL
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING
CEN~R
FIGURE IV- 12
C_ .ianitos Canyon--Medium Haul
2. Site Concept
This site occupies a ridge to the east of upper Cristianitos Canyon. This ridge location
places the runways high enough to achieve acceptable obstacle clearance in relation to the
higher terrain to the north. It is adjacent to the general location of one of the major
alternate routes of the Foothill Transportation Corridor as it passes through the most
southeasterly portion of Orange County.
The site concept evaluated in this program is a conventional, complete site including all
normal passenger and operational support facilities. It would be possible, of course, to
explore the feasibility and desirability of the "land based aircraft carrier" concept, with
remote terminal locations in already established or planned-activity centers along existing
or planned transportation routes. While this would not reduce the aircraft operation
impacts, it could offset secondary impacts associated with passenger handling and related
development typically attracted to airport sites.
A matter of considerable significance to the Cristianitos site is the nature of the departure
path. Both modified straight-out and maximum turn departure paths have been explored.
The Round II analysis was based on a pattern that curved to the east over Can~ Pendleton
and then climbed north over the coastal mountains. This had the effect of routing aircraft
away from populated areas and avoided overfli~ts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, but increased the impacts on Cmnp Pendleton operations, raised questions about
operational preferences by ~e pilots of larger aircraft, and also raised questions about
obstacle clearances.
For Round IH, a modified straight-out departure is used for a Medium Haul facility, which
involves a modest right mm near the Camp Pendleton boundary (over 2 miles from the
runway) and passes the coast midway between the San Onofre Nuclear facility and the
southernmost edge of San Clemente. This places the flight path about 2 miles from each
of them.
The easterly mm departure path is being reviewed by the FAA for compliance with their
specifications and required obstacle clearances. At the time of this writing, their comments
have 'not been received. Accordingly, even though the Program technical team believes
FAA TERPS requirements are satisfied by this departure concept, it should be considered
an alternate to be further explored if the FAA review verifies its acceptability.
The 65dB CNEL contour (and, in fact, the 60dB CNEL contour) terminate before the flight
path crosses into Camp Pendleton. Consequently, there is no noise impact from the site on
existing or approved residential development.
IV-40
cristianitos Canyon.-Medium Haul
The concerns expressed by the City of San Clemente and officials of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff about the impacts of an airport at this location are not
eliminated by this concept; .they must be addressed and documented if consideration of the
Cristianitos site goes forward. That is the purpose of placing this information in the
record.
. .
3. Major Obstacles
Major obstacles to the establishment of a site ate this location include:
Opposition by the City of San Clemente and officials of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff because of concems about the possible impacts
of an airport on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station..
Potential impacts including, but not limited to, noise on the nearby Talega
Valley residential development approved in and adjacent to the northeasterly
portion of San Clemente. (Although the residential areas are outside of the
65 dB CNEL and even the 60 dB CNEL contour.)
Resolution of the final route and timing of the Foothill Transportation
· Corridor. , ,,
General, wide spread opposition to an airport site at this location by the City
of San Clemente and many of its residents.
Opposition by the Base Command and the Navy Department on the basis of
impacts on the operations housing in the northern portion of Camp
Pendleton. (Also outside the 60 dB CNEL and 65 dB CNEL contours.)
The need to penetrate currently established restricted airspaces, thus
necessitating their revision if the Cristianitos site is implemented.
4. Criteria Performance Summaries
A.I : Passenger Capacity of Site
Measure: 15.1 MAP
Points: 50
Comments:
Orange County Passenger Demand Served (% and MAP)
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
50% (7.4 MAP)
100
See Part Five, Section A.2 for discussion.
IV-41
A3 : Air Cargo and General Aviation Service
~ ianitos Can.yon--Me~um Haul
Points:
Comments:
Both
100
Accommodates air cargo and general aviation flights
B.I' Timetable for Airport Development
Mcastlre:
Points:
Comments:
2005
50
One year timetable for aixport sponsorship and funding; two
years timetable for airport master planning and special studies;
three years timetable for environmental processing; three years
for land acquisition and facilities design; six years timetable
for construction. This timetable also assumes that the airport
development process begins in year 1990, and that some
requirements occur simultaneously.
B2: Total Capital Costs of Development per Passenger
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
$12 per passenger, $1.85 bR~on total cost
100
Pfinc~le costs site preparation and ah~ort consuuc~on, 116
ion cu. y~. of cut and fill.
B 3 : Local Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
4
1
This criterion measures formal opposition to a particular .site
by local jurisdiction in its vicinity. There were 4 in number.
B.4 : Regional Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
No Formal Position
5O
There is no SCAG policy, on this site because it has never
been considered before.
IV-42
CristK.. ,~s Canyon--Medium Haul
B.q: State Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Yes
100
This site appears to be in compliance with State laws,
regulations and policies.
B.6: National Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
No
1
The command as Camp Pendleton opposes the site because of
its impact on the unique training mission conducted at Camp
Pendleton. The NUclear Regulatory Commission staff
registered opposition to this site because of its proximity to the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
B.7: Grass Roots Support/Concerns
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
2,546
1
See Part Five, Section B-7 for discussion.
C.I' Aircraft Noise Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
0
100
No residents are impacted within either the 60 or 65 dB CNEL
contour.
C.2: Aircraft Accident Risk
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
10,900 acres
34
This area is substantial because of the large amount of nearby
vacant land which has been or will be planned for
development.
C.3: Surface Traffic Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Level of Service; E
20
Surface traffic impacts consider several factors including the
number of the trips generated by the employees of the airport,
and employees resulting from commercial and industrial
development drawn to locate in the airport vicinity rather than
IV-43
C.. ~nitos Canyon--Medium Haul
elsewhere in the region (as taken into account in current
employment projections.) The very significant traffic impacts
could be substantially reduced by limiting employment related
uses in the vicinity of the ah'port.
For the Round ri level of analysis, the measure of traffic
impact combines potential arterial impacts into a "system-wide"
impact a~sessment. The system-wide measure compares the
total projected waffle volumes along all major impacted arterial
segments to total system capacity to provide an overall
assessment of system utilization. This comparison is expressed
in terms of Level of Service (LOS) which ia a qualitative
description of traffic flow conditions based on a comparison of
traffic volume to roadway capacity. The measures of LOS
describe traffic conditions ranging fxom free flowing to severe
congestion
The LOS for this site are noted below:
LOS without Airport
A
LOS with Ai~n in
Yea/2010 Conditions
A
LOS Total (Airport & Related
Development in Year 2010 Conditions
F
LOS After All Mitigation Measures
are Applied
E
C.4: Impact on the Military
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Moderate
50
The command at SCP opposes the site because of its impacts
on base housing and Helicopter operations from Tustin to
Camp Pendleton. 'There is considerable area within the base to
which certain impacted operations could be located.
· . Cristianitos Can.yon--Medium Haul.
C.$: Airspace Impacts
Po~ts:
Comments:
Good
75
Cristianitos Canyon has a "good" rating due to its very high
capacity, but must be accompanied by redesigning the
restricted area through which civilian aircraft would have to
ny.
C.6: Air Quality Impacts
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
284,280
92
The high measure is a result of the 23 days per year during
which ozone standards are exceeded.
C.7: Flora and Fauna Impacts
Mea.~'e:
Points:
Comments:
Severe
1
The area is known to support several sensitive flora and faunal
species. The site has a potential for the occurrence of 8
sensitive animal species, 3 sensitive plant Species and 2
sermitive habitat types. An airport at this site is not expected
to significantly impact the Rolling Hills Reserve Area to the
northeast. This area was established by the Rolling Hills Final
EIR 482 (1988).
C.8: Human Health Exposure to Hazards
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
Sigrdficant
1
The airport would introduce hazardous or toxic substances into
the area which is currently relatively free of such substances.
This would result in an increased exposure of a population to
human health hazards.
The Cristianitos Canyon site is also located in the vicinity of
San Onofxe Nuclear Power Plant and would require modifica-
tion to existing emergency response plans. No existing
policies restrict or limit development in the vicinity of the
power plant, however, strong opposition to the site by nuclear
regulatory commission staff indicate significant negotiations
would be required if the 'site were to move forward.
IV-45
_C anitos Canyon--Medium Haul
C.9: Water Systems Impacts
Measuro~
Points:
Comments:
25
The project would eliminate approximately 8.6 acres of
streamcourse riparian habitat from the site. A Section 404
Permit may be required.
C. I O : Socioeconomic Benefits
Measure:
Points:
Comments:
$616 million
85
Factors in the measure: employment increase 8400, employ-
ment decrease 0, constru~on impact $705 million, total
annualized economic $538 million. Transportation benefit $77
million.
C.II' Socioeconomic Costs
~eamlre:
Points:
50
Although there would be a reduction in the amount of grading
required for_ .this medium haul site, many of the same adverse
effects noted for the International Haul and Long Haul
'alternatives would still exist. While these impacts would
diminish to a degree, they would still be significant. Impacts
on community character are particularly significant to the City
of San Clemente.
IV-46
PART SIX
STRATEGY FOR ACTION
I. Intwduction
This Report of the Airport Site Consensus Program presents the analysis, considerations and
recommendations of the Airport Site Consensus Team, which has been involved in the
process of site evaluation and screening (See Appendix Q). The product of this effort will
be forwarded to appropriate governrnent agencies for further action.
This section of the Report outlines the Strategy that will shape the Action Plan for use by
the Airport Site Coalition and others in pursuing the establishment of an airport site.
The Strategy is based upon several fundamental requirements that must be met to carry on
the wo~:k accomplished in this Program. The cor~rmafion of these requirements will allow
a more detailed Action Plan to be developed.
He
Establiah~g and Maintaining Momentum
How can momentum toward site implementation be established and maintained?
The Airport Site Coalition, its four member organizations and the Airport Site Consensus
Team have demonstrated their commitment to finding a solution to the air transportation
challenge facing the County.
The strategy calls for the Airport Site Coalition and interested members of the Site
Consensus Team to urge implementing actions and to track progress as the Final Report
moves into the goyemmental arena._ This follow-up commitment includes:
· Pr~aring a detailed Action Plan and Schedule for Implementation;
Transmitting the Final Report and Action Plan to appropriate government
agencies;
Exploring the possibility of establishing a Joint Venture Team consisting of
appropriate public officials and a private consortium of major airport
construction/financing 'finns to master plan the airport site believed to offer th~.~.
greatest prospect of success;
Urging the adoption of the necessary Regional Transponat/on Plan policy
amendments so that any one of the finalist, sites would be consistent with
,adopted regional plans (To be accomplished by the 'Southem California
Association'of Governments (SCAG) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG); and
Soliciting Governmental leadership to commit to the development of a new
site to serve Orange County.
1II. Determination of. ,.,on Sponsorship
Who should be the airport sponsor?
Three basic choices are: 1) public sector, 2) a private owner/operator; or 3) a
public/private joint venture.
The third altemative, a joint venture of public sector representation and a private consonium
of airport construction/financing f'urns would have the best chance of success.
The Joint Venture Team, acting as the airpon sponsor, would perform these basic tasks:
1).
2)
3)
4)
Seek funding for the necessary planning activities;
Prepare the Site Master Plan;
Conduct the necessary environmental analysis and documentation; and,
Seek the necessary governmental approvals.
The public sector side of the joint venture team would function as the Lead Agency.
Forging this government component could take one of several directions:
A. Federal Government
Structure the Lead Agency responsibility at the Federal level, with involvement of other
appropriate levels of government under the direction of the designated Lead Agency. This
approach would emphasize involvement by the several Federal agencies/departments who are
central to making-progress on any of the finalist sites.
B. State Government
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics has identified statewide
needs for an enhanced air transportation system, including establishment of a new site in the
southern portion of the Los Angeles basin. Designation of State Lead Agency responsibility
would focus attention on the state as well as regional interests in a new airport.
C. Regional Government
This altemative is similar, but not identical to, the existing Regional Airport Authority which
includes Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bemardino counties and the City of Los Angeles.
This alternative's regional focus would be upon Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties,.
given the location of the finalist sites near the convergence of these three counties. Such an
authority would need to coordinate its efforts with both existing regional governments with
responsibilities in this area: SCAG and SANDAG. This approach would give regional
emphasis to the sponsorship and involve a collaboration that has not existed to date.
D. Orange County Government
With the County of Orange as Lead Agency, the focus would be primarily on serving the
County need, which has been the central interest of the Site Consensus Program. The
involvement of higher levels of government would continue to be vital. 'Without active
involvement by Riverside and San Diego counties, this alternative would severely limit
consideration of sites situated in those two counties.
Under any of the altemative approaches, it is essential that the particular govemment entities
having the most substantial roles in creating the new airport be involved in the process.
IV. Site Implementation
What is the process for implementing a site?
-The general steps required for airport approval and development include:
· Identify an airport sponsor or sponsors and form a joint venture;
· Apply for and obtain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds for initial
site planning;
· Identify a site and obtain site approval as an applicable component of the
SCAG and SANDAG Regional Transportation Plans;
· Prepare a detailed work program, schedule, budget and project management
guide for conducting the desigrgapproval/constmction/cettification process.
· Prepare an Airport Master Plan for the site;
· Concurrently prepare, process and obtain certification of an EIR/EIS, including
necessary mitigation programs;
· Obtain environmental permits as required;
· Conduct airspace studies and obtain approval of airspace provisions from the
FAA;
· Process and obtain approval by the appropriate Airport Land Use Commission;
· Obtain approval by the appropriate Board(s) of Supervisors and, if necessary,
any City directly involved;
· Obtain site approval by the California Department of Transportation, Division
of Aeronautics;
Obtain fun. ~or property acquisition, environme~ .... mitigation, engineering
design and construction, including application for FAA funding;
· Acquire necessary property and easements;
· Design the environmental mitigation program;
· Complete preliminary engineering, engineering design and final plans:
· Obtain building permits;
· Construct the airport;
· Conduct the approved environmental mitigation program;
Complete necessary inspections by local government and the California
Division of Aeronautics;
Obtain airport certification and granting of the operating permit by the
California Division of Aeronautics.
This list of steps will require detailed scoping and scheduling as part of the Action Plan,
and will be tailored to a specific airport site.
.
V. F~alist Sites
How should the f'malist sites be pursued and what needs to be done to keep site options
open?
Four potential sites have emerged as the strongest candidates: South Camp Pendleton; March
Air Force Base; Potrero Los Pinos and Cristianitos Canyon. As with the other sites or site
variations that have been considered, each of the finalist sites has significant obstacles that
must be overcome first .
The four sites have been ranked according to the criteria Of the Site Consensus Team. Each
has particular advantages and 'disadvantages. All four sites are within a central area
experiencing continual growth pressures from the north, south and east within the greater
Southern California region.
The strategy is to pursue the sites in sequence, beginning with the site the Joint Venture
Team believes to represent the most realistic possibility, but incorporating a process which
provide~ for an exploration of the remaining ffmalist sites if the initial site does not receive
the necessary approvals.
~ procedure is necessary if the Joint Venture Team is to have the most practical basis for
proceeding.
The Airport Site Co,_,~nsus Program has generated four h.__~st sites out of 31 sites or site
variations that have been considered and has prepared site rat&lng according to the criteria
established in the Program. The program also has identified the issues, benefits and obstacles
associated with each site. Thc ultimate site decision would be within the purview of the
proposed special public sector/private sector Joint Venture Team.
VI. Action Entities
What entities need to be involved and why?
The Airport Site Coalition and its four member organizations propose, with the support of
interested members of the Airport Ske Consensus Team, to maintain the necessary
momentum during the formation of the Joint Venture Team and will continue its interest
through the ultimate development of the new airport.
Congressional guidance and support is of manifest importance. The complexities involved in
reconciling different interests between various Federal departments and agencies need the
highest possible level of attention and leadership.
Important Federal government agencies include the Federal Aviation Administr~on and the
Depamnent of Defense. In the case of Potrero Los Pinos, the Depamnent of Agriculture is
also essential. In the case of Cristianitos, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is essential.
County government involvemem is critical, since all of the sites are in unincorporated
territory in the respective counties. County government is the logical level to address issues
of countywide significance.
SCAG and SANDAG are .important participants due to the finalist sites being of both inter-
and intra-regional in significance.
The State Division of Aeronautics is important due to the statewide significance of a site
that would respond to the Draft California Aviation System Plan Update's specification of a
site in the southem portion of the Los Angeles Basin as well as an additional site to serve
San Diego County. It is possible that a site of sufficient capacity in the general location of
the finalist sites could satisfy both of these requirements.
All municipalities in the three-county area have a stake in the outcome of the process.
Those cities directly affected need to be part of the fOrmal process.
VII. O~her Sites
How should potential airport sites being studied by others be handled?
Norton Air Force Base is being studied by the City and County of San Bemardino, with the
participation of nearby cities and interest groups. That site could become part of the
regional system by the time another new site is added. Progress on the Norton Air Force
Base study should be tracked, as should planning and capacity information on the existing
airports serving the Southern California region.
The offshore site (representing both the Los Angeles Harbor and Huntington Flats sites
studied in the Airport Site Coalition Program) is slated to be investigated by SCA(] in a
somewhat different location and configuration. Should a soild plan emerge from that effort,
it will need to be incorporated into the overall system.
Both Norton and the offshore site could result in rearrangement of levels of service among
certain existing airports, bringing about improved overall service, reduced air traffic
congestion/conflict and expanded longer term capacity potential beyond the forecast year of
2010.
VIII. Pivotal Decision
What is the most important step that needs to be taken and who should take it?
Most critical at this time is to maintain the momentum and build on the work already
accomplished by the Airport Site Coalition and the Site Consensus Team. To do so will
require following the steps outlined in Section II.
In contrast to past airport studies (See Appendix R), the Airport Site Consensus Program:
1)
2)
3)
identified two potential sites in Orange County that have not been previously
considered;
offered site alternatives if the "best" site becomes infeasible; and,
involved the largest cadre of informed citizens ever to participate in addressing
this particular issue in the history of Orange County.
This process has put into focus the reality of what must be done if we are to break the
inertia in finding a solution to Orange County's air transportation problem. That is a
notable public service, not diminished by the fact that all sites emerging from the Site
Consensus Program are confronted with significant implementation challenges.
The Airport Site Consensus Program has developed an Action Strategy that offers a means
of establi,qfing a new airport to serve Orange County and its neighbors to the south and
east. The immedinte step that must be taken to capitalize on this oppommity is to form the
proposed Joint Venture Team as quickly as possible. Now it is up to the decision makers
and opinion leaders to make that happen.