Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIRPORT USMCAS EL TORO 8-30-82DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 25, 1982 8-30-82 Inter-Corn CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING NO. 4 William Huston, City Manager Community Development Department Regional Commerical Airport Facility at USMCAS, E1 Toro RECOPlqENDATIO# Submission for Council consideration of draft letter of opposition to the inclusion of the USMCAS facility at E1 Toro as a candidate for a regional commerical airport as outlined in the supplemental draft environmental impact report on the Southern California Aviation System Study. BACKGROUND For approximately the last 15-20 years, the Southern California Association of Governments has been involved in several studies concerning anticipated need and subsequent location for a new regional commercial airport system. In 1970, SCAG completed a study that concluded a new airport should be developed in Palmdale. The City of Los Angeles has purchased the Palmdale site and according to the SCAG report, is currently programming its development. In early 1978, the SCAG Executive Committee created the Aviation Work Program Committee (AWPC) to "re-examine" the region's planned aircarrier capacity.- In other words, the Palmdale site isn't going to meet the region's needs and an additional site is necessary. In 1980, the AWPC narrowed down a list of seven potential sites (including E1 Toro) to the one "best alternative". Based on airspace feasibility, market attraction, noise and other environmental impacts and development costs, the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor site was selected. Through the course of a series of public hearings, various political forces voiced concern, and opposition to the development of an off-shore airport in-the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor. As a result, the supplemental draft EIR has been composed outlining two additional airport alternatives, namely USMCAS E1 Toro, and Camp Pendleton. William Huston August 30, 1982 Page 2 On September 2, 1982, the SCAG Executive Committee is scheduled to hear and possibly certify the Final EIR. DISCUSSION Before discussing the relative aspects and adverse impacts of the site that is of most concern to Tustin (El Toro), the ramifications of the Draft EIR should be pointed out. The DEIR, if certified, will automatically become a s Transportation Plan/Aviation Element. part of SCAG' Regional The implication here is that once the alternatives become part of the plan, SCAG is charged with ensuring the implementation of said plan. Therefore, if the E1 Toro site is included in the Final EIR, and if at some time in the future it is decided that E1 Toro is to be the site for the new airport, any additional public hearings or environmental impact reports become merely a matter of form, and the development of the site is a foregone conclusion. Obviously, this scenario omits the fact that the U.S. Marine Corp and Department of Defense will more than likely be formidable opponents to any civilian use of E1 Toro. After reviewing the Supplemental DEIR, staff is of the opinion that not only is the document inadequate for integration into the Regional Transporation Plan, the site itself is not the best alternative for a regional airport. ' The adverse impacts of a regional airport facility at USMCAS E1 Toro are as follows: Noise While Tustin is outside of the 60-66 CNEL, 60,000 more civilian than current milita~ flights are anticipated. Departures will not impact Tustin, however, it is possible that arrivals may (see Airspace impacts). Additionally, the DEIR does not address topographical features, therefore, reverberation-type impacts are not detailed. Air Quality With the development of E1 Toro, emissions within the South Coast Air Basin would be greater than assumed and accounted for by the SCAG adopted Air Quality Management Plan. Emissions would exceed 1995 allowable levels for THC by 11%, for NOx by 15% and CO by 6%. SCAG has labled these as significant and that mitigation measures of "controls on aircraft and/or airport activities" would be necessary to stay within compliance of 1979 AQMP. William Huston August 30, 1982 Page 3 Additionally, emissions in the "immediate vicinity" of E1 Toro will be increased by 56% for THC and NOx and by 50% for CO. The DEIR states that State/Federal standards for CO and Nox would not be violated and therefore, according to the report, the increase on local air quality would not be significant. The report mentions that air quality would be impacted by new development that would ~ke place in conjunction with a new airport, but makes no effort to estiamte or address said impacts. Air Space In order to accommodate 189,500 annual operations and 18,~m~!illion annual pa~]engers several modifications would have to be made to made.to E1 Toro, mo~t of which revolve around technical traffic control procedures. During normal operations, the conflicts with other existing facilities (John Wayne & MCAS Tustin) are kept to a minimum. However, approximately 15% of the time, the normal procedures of departures to the east (see attached map) are not possible and the alternative is to depart to the north. When this situation is coupled with the standard arrival pattern from the south, obvious delays will ensue. Further, the approach from the south requires an interruption of activity at John Wayne airport. The reason for such interruption is that a "missed approach" procedure must be made available for each arrival in the event of bad weather or other emergency situations. In the event of a missed approach, the incoming aircraft must continue northbound for three miles and subsequently make a left turn and continue around to the south east. This sequence would place a craft originally bound for E1 Toro in "direct conflict with the John Wayne instrument approaches. According to the DEIR, the practical effect of this procedure would be extensive aircraft delays, and a 50% reduction in operator's capacity during peak periods at both E1 Toro and John Wayne. It seems safe to assume that such delays, even if only occ~onally, would cause even greater traffic conj~ions than is anticipated. It should be remembered that there must be t~s "emergency air space" available even if there is never a "missed approach". Additionally, the DEIR addresses the air operations with the concept that the runway alignments will remain in. their present configuration. This cross pattern would be made possible by an extensive re-grading project to bring the runways into a more effective takeoff and landing base for commercial aircraft. The Orange County Master Plan of Air Transportation, Phase I (1968) labeled the cross-traffic arrangement as unsuitable for efficient air carrier service. Staff fails to believe that in the final design of a regional airport, that every effort would not be made to increase the efficiency of any runway design and thereby increase the potential flight carrying capacity. The Master Plan recommendation was to have two (2) runways parallel to the Santa Ana Freeway alignment which would be in direct alignment with Tustin to the west (see attachment). William Huston August 30, 1982 Page ¢ Traffic The volume of traffic on both surface streets and the freeway system in the Tustin area has been well documented as have the associated problems. The current transportation system in some areas is already at what is generally accepted as maximum capacity. To accommodate an estimated 54,000 persons entering the airport daily (peak operation), the DEIR technical report states a need for two additional freeway lanes in each direction on Interstate 5 from Route 133 to the Riverside Freeway. The addition of such a large volume of traffic to the Tustin area, not to mention the loss of land, buildings, etc., must be addressed in far more detail than has been presented in any of the pertinent documents. In the DEIR, General Plan Designations were utilized when estimating traffic impacts in the area. A point to be considered is to question how SCAG classified the Peter's Canyon area and whether or not the planned development in the Canyon was included in the ~tudy. No specific mention of the Peter's Canyon area was noted in staff's review. Another point to consider is that the proposed limitations on operations at E1 Toro are based in part upon current "pqlicy constraints" on other facilities in the area. Presumably, an increase in operations at MCAS Tustin, or at John Wayne, would have additional in, acts on the regional system (e.g., John Wayne has a constraint level of 4.5 million annual passengers (MAP) while the 1978 level was only 2.4 MAP). CO#CLUSIO#S The consideration of the USMCAS at E1 Toro as a "technically feasible alternative" for a regional air carrier facility may be just that, technically feasible. However, to consider E1 Toro as a viable, practical site for a civilian airport of the magnitude envisioned is unacceptable. Staff concludes that the environmental impacts cited above have not adequately or realistically been considered. Nor have other issues even been addressed (i.e., the impact and cost of relocating the Marine operations at E1 Toro). In a previous report, the E1 Toro site was considered "marginally feasible" because of capacity limitations, noise exposure and cost-effectiveness. Only after much political opposition to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor was the E1 Toro site "re-examined". Staff cannot supp~rt the inclusion of the E1 Toro site in the SCAG's Regional Transpr~c~tion Plan/Aviation Element, as outlined in the subject DEIR and recommends that the Council approve the draft letter of opposition for the Mayor's signature . If approved, staff will hand-deliver the letter on Tuesday prior to the Executive Committee's meeting on September 2, 1982. Present El Toro MCAS run~y alignments cause aporcmc~ d_%,;~_, ute u'~rafflc unsuit- RegiOnal airl3ort configuration at dtl of El Toro MC, AS w~uld rlcluire new runwly IlIgnrnent perallet to Santa An~ Frae~my. Source: Orange County Master Plan of Air Transportation(1968) August 25, 1982 Ms. Pat Russell Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dear Ms. Russell: The cities of irvine and Laguna Beach request that the SCAG Executive Committee allow a brief presentation by Mayor Larry Agran, representing these two cities, when it considers the issue of a regional airport site on September 2, 1982. We would also, by means of this letter, like to jointly reiterate a number of concerns regarding the E1 Toro site which we have communicated to you separately in the last few months: The improvements necessary to deal with transportation problems in the E1 Toro area, even without an airport, will cost billions of dollars -- monies which we may not be able to raise under any conditions. The addition of a regional airport would be catastrophic and would adversely impact a major portion of our community.. The Executive Committee is making a decision which will result in major changes to the development pattern of Orange County without having adequate information on the impacts this would generate. Adverse impacts, including lack of infrastructure to deal with problems such as waste water treatment and air pollution should be addressed prior to choosing a site. Only in this way can costs and benefits be properly weighed. The current proposal is to choose a site and subsequently prepare necessary amendments to SCAG's air quality, housing and growth policies. The amendments should be ~dopted prior to selecting a site. If the necessary amendments are unacceptable, the site may be unacceptable. 19.3,,3. ,ne, Cafc::-a 92713 ,..~-..00 Ms. Pat Russell -2- August 25, 1982 Materials supporting tbese points have been submitted to the Executive Committee already, and have not been included in this letter. We would like to take this opportunity to eliminate some miscon- ceptions regarding coordination between the City of Irvine and the Marine Corps. Planning for the E1 Toro area has been based on the policy that the Marines are at E1 Toro to stay: the Marine Corps and the City of Irvine have resolved to develop the "Golden Triangle" commercial area in a manner which accommodates tbe needs of both the Marine Corps and the commercial center; and the Marines and Irvine Meadows have entered into a cooperative agreement to prevent conflict between Marine Corps flights and events at the amphitheatre. We would like to emphasize that our presentation on September 2nd ~qill be yery brief; however, we feel it is critical that we be able to address the committee. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Larry Agran, Mayor City of Irvine Neil Fitzpatrick, Mayor City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development August 30, 1982 Ms. Pat Russell Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90005 Dear Ms. Russell: The City of Tustin, with the cities of Irvine and Laguna Beach, would like to voice their concerns regarding the inclusion of the MCAS E1 Toro as a possible regional airport site as proposed in Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California Aviation Systems Study. The City of Tustin fully supports the contentions listed in the joint letter from the cities of Irvine and Laguna Beach dated August 25, 1982. Specifically, we are most concerned in the following areas: am The Orange County Board of Supervisors has recently approved a major expansion of John Wayne Airport to increase the flight capacity. Tustin's north-south arterial highways are presently choked during rush hours from traffic from the John Wayne area as motorists seek alternative routes from the congested freeway system. We fear that Tustin will be faced with similar conditions on its east-west arterials as they become alternative routes to and from E1 Toro. The report referred to freeway expansion as a mitigation measure to traffic impacts. Such expansions to accommodate existing and expected volumes will greatly affect Tustin as land is taken from existing residential and commercial development to expand the Santa Aha and Costa Mesa Freeway interchange. What monies will be available to the City to offset the loss of revenue from productive land for a massive freeway expansion and for increased maintenance on more heavily traveled arterials? 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Ms. Pat Russell August 30, 1982 Page 2 The report assumes the continuation of the current criss-cross runway pattern. In 1968, the Orange County Master Plan of Air Transportation stated this type of design is unsuitable for civil air carrier service. We believe that any re-design of E1 Toro will include a twin parallel runway alignment to maximize the potential flight capacity. This design, if aligned with the^Santa Ana Freeway as suggested in the transposition plan, would result in additional flight pattern~ over Tustin. With the above-mentioned concerns, it appears that Tustin will also suffer the combined noise and air pollution from air and surface traffic resulting from two major airports. The City of Tustin therefore requests that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report not be certified by the Executive Committee. Furthermore, we request that the City be contacted on any future studies regarding consideration by SCAG for a regional airport in this area. Recognizing that the document before the Executive Committee is a systems EIR which addresses the technical feasibiliy of E1 Toro, the City believes the report does not adequately assess i~acts to the surrounding area. Very truly yours, Richard B.Edgar Mayor