HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - JWA Settlement Agreement Proposed AmendmentsJune 25, 2002
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of the City Council
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Comm.
P.M. JWA Settlement Agreement
Proposed Amendments
y
4�
DATE: June 25, 2002
BACKGROUND
In March of 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (Board) filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court asking for a judicial
determination that they had fully complied with all laws in approving the
John Wayne Airport (JWA) Master Plan. In August of 1985, the City
Council, the Board, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and the Airport
Working Group (AWG) approved a stipulation that allowed the County to
implement the flight increases and facility improvements contemplated by
the Master Plan (with some modifications) subject to assurances that no
further increases in flights or facilities would occur for a period of twenty
(20) years (JWA Settlement Agreement). The parties to the JWA Settlement
Agreement have, on seven different occasions over the last seventeen (17)
years, approved stipulations that modified, or otherwise related to the
enforcement of, the Settlement Agreement.
In August of 2000, the City Council asked the Board to consider
amendments to JWA Settlement Agreement. In December of 2000, the
Board directed the CEO "to work with the City to study the potential of
extending certain restrictions at JWA." On May 229 2001, the Board and
the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
established a process for the preparation of an environmental impact report
(EIR 582) to study three "project scenarios" and other alternatives as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines. Each of the three project scenarios assumed amendments to
the JWA Settlement Agreement that would, in comparison to existing
provisions, authorize an increase in the maximum number of permitted
passenger loading bridges, noise regulated departures and passenger levels
as well as an extension of the term of the JWA Settlement Agreement.
On February 26, 2002, the Board certified EIR 582 and directed staff to
work with the City to prepare amendments to the Settlement Agreement
consistent with the "framework" of Scenario 1. The key provisions of
Scenario 1 are contained in Exhibit A and are compared to the other
"scenarios" and alternatives.evaluated in EIR 582. In summary, Scenario 1
- which assumes a ten -year extension of the term - authorizes 12 additional
noise - regulated departures, an increase of 1.4 million annual. passengers
(MAP). and four (4) additional loading bridges.
DISCUSSION
Staff has, in cooperation with representatives of AWG and SPON, worked
with the Airport Director and lawyers for the County to draft amendments
to the JWA Settlement Agreement consistent with Scenario 1 and with a
view towards ensuring that the protection afforded by the Settlement
Agreement remains in effect during the entire term. The proposed
amendments are contained in the "Eighth Amended Stipulation"
(Amendment) that is Exhibit B to this memo. The Amendment is
consistent with the framework of Scenario 1 - which extends. the term to
the end of 2015 - but the curfew will remain in effect until the end of 2020.
Staff has also prepared a document entitled "Implementation Protocol"
(Exhibit C) which outlines the procedures the parties will follow after
approval to ensure effective communication among the parties and between
the parties and interested persons such as the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the Air Transport Association (ATA). Finally, staff
has prepared findings (Exhibit D) for the City Council to make since we are
a "responsible agency" pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
We have received a copy of a resolution adopted by a SPON subcommittee
confirming that they have authorized Roy Woolsey, their attorney, to
execute the Amendment: AWG has executed the Implementation Protocol
and has authorized the AWG Executive Director to sign the Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the City Council take the following action:.
1. Authorize the City Attorney to execute the Amendment
(Exhibit B) on behalf of the City of Newport,Beach
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Implementation
Protocol (Exhibit C); and
3. In conjunction with these authorizations, make the findings
specified in Exhibit D.
4. Authorize staff to record a Notice of Determination.
Norma Glover, Chair
JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee
U)
)
§
k
0
a
§
8
§
a
§
■
§
cl
a
LU
s
m
�
«
LU
2
LU
E
■
§
§
«
EXHIBIT A
to lu
Cd
00
C,4
%
N
,
k
}
)
r_s
| cc
2 (0
e _
c
;q£
;7 §!\22k
\2§
))
z
!)
)
~
k
Cc
CL
2
»�2;
®
$■aa
go
/�
§
\k\§))(
\�j
�_
�(M
§
C4
0
i
&a2/
\(
k�
(a
a()-
co
-s
§\
)
)2
-
®»
\\
%
.8
g
kL
;
~
//
)
@s
222k'kk)
§
CL G8
)
,7
:�,
|e
(
-
`
�k §�(.)
55
D
)
„
tm
E
-
)
,
/
0
■!
!
-0
k,E.
§i�%
7
§§7
k}\
)ƒ}}
/
d
a_ COD
EXHIBIT A
2
4
0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael Scott Gatzke ( #57076)
Lori D. Ballance ( #133469)
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance LLP
1921 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 200
Carlsbad, California 92008
(760) 431 -9501
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel ( #65618)
Richard Oviedo, Deputy County Counsel ( #62331)
County of Orange
P.O. Box 1379
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -1379
(714) 834 -3303
Attorneys for the County of Orange
Robert H. Burnham ( #44926)
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3131
Attorney for the City of Newport Beach
Barbara E. Lichman ( #138469)
Chevalier, Allen & Lichman
2603 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92714
(949) 474 -6967
Attorney for Airport Working
Group of Orange County, Inc. (AWG)
Roy B. Woolsey (#18019)
113 Via Venezia
Newport Beach, California 92663 -5516
(949) 673 -3731
Attorney for Stop Polluting Our
Newport (SPON)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE,
)
No. CV 85 -1542 TJH (MCx)
Plaintiff,
)
EIGHTH SUPPLEMENTAL
V.
)
STIPULATION BY THE COUNTY OF
AIR CALIFORNIA, et al.,
)
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, STOP POLLUTING
Defendants.
)
OUR NEWPORT, AND THE AIRPORT
WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE
COUNTY, INC., AMENDING THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
Counterclaimant,
PREVIOUS STIPULATIONS OF THOSE
V.
)
PARTIES AND REQUESTING A
MODIFICATION OF AN EXECUTORY
COUNTY OF ORANGE; ORANGE COUNTY
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; and DOES 1
through 1,000, Inclusive,
AND
Counterdefendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
)
FXHTHTT R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. BASIS FOR THE 111985 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT"
1. In November 1985, the County of Orange and the Orange County Board of
Supervisors (`Board ") (collectively, the "County"), the City of Newport Beach ( "City"), Stop
Polluting Our Newport ( "SPON "), and the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc.
( "AWG') (City, SPON and AWG are sometimes collectively referred to as "the City"), by their
respective counsel of record, entered into a stipulation to implement the settlement of the
longstanding dispute between the County and the City concerning the development and operation
of John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) ( "JWA ") ( "the 1985 Settlement Agreement "). The
parties are sometimes collectively referred to in this Eighth Supplemental Stipulation by the
County and the City ( "Amended Stipulation") as the "Settling Parties ". On December 15, 1985,
the United States District Court entered a final judgment ( "the confirming judgment ") pursuant to
the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The confirming judgment: (1) adjudicated that Environmental
Impact Report 508/Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIR 508/EIS ") was legally adequate for the
"EIR 508/EIS Project" (as that term is hereafter defined) under the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA "), and all relevant state
and federal implementing regulations; (2) adjudicated that all other claims, controversies and/or
counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice; and (3) contained specific provisions for
enforcement of the 1985 Settlement Agreement.
2. The compromise settlement reached by the Settling Parties reflected, under all of the
circumstances, the individual judgments of the Settling Parties regarding an appropriate or
acceptable balance between demand for air travel services in Orange County and any adverse
environmental effects associated with the operation of JWA. The Settling Parties acknowledge that,
without the 1985 Settlement Agreement and confirming judgment, protracted litigation would have
continued and created an ongoing risk of impeding or preventing the County's development of
STIPULATIONANDIPROPOSEDIORDER 1
I JWA, and its ability to create additional access opportunities for commercial operators desiring to
2 use JWA.
3 3. Other provisions of the Settling Parties' agreement included actions that were
4
generally described in, but not implemented directly through, the 1985 Settlement Agreement.
5
6 Those provisions included actions undertaken by the County in adopting and implementing
7 Resolution Nos. 85 -1231, 85 -1232 and 85 -1233 (all adopted on August 27, 1985) concerning
8 certification of EIR 508/EIS, adoption of additional mitigation measures and additional airport site
9 studies in Orange County, and the parties' dismissal of other litigation concerning JWA.
10 4. In reaching the 1985 Settlement Agreement, the Settling Parties considered
11
operational and other factors applicable to JWA that are not applicable to any other airport. The
12
13 1985 Settlement Stipulation is site specific to JWA, premised upon its unique history, operational
14 characteristics and limitations. Specifically, the essential character of JWA as an airport facility,
15 both operationally and environmentally, is defined by the significant and substantial physical and
16 environmental constraints affecting public use of the facility, including, but not limited to, the
17
extremely confined airport area that includes a total of approximately five hundred and four (504)
18
acres, less than four hundred (400) acres of which are available for airfield operations, an extensive
19
20 highway and local street system that surrounds the area, and residential and commercial areas
21 located generally to the southeast, south, west, southwest, and north of the airport area, and
22 commercial areas to the east of the airport area.
23 5. Regularly scheduled commercial service was first initiated at JWA in 1967, and
24
since the late 1960s, the County has regulated the use and operation of JWA by a variety of means
25
in an effort to control and reduce any adverse environmental impacts caused by aircraft operations
26
27 to and from JWA. These regulations have included such restrictions as: (i) strict noise -based
28 limitations on the type of aircraft which are permitted to use JWA, including both commercial and
STIPULATION AND /PROPOSED/ ORDER 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
general aviation aircraft; (ii) a nighttime "curfew" on aircraft operations exceeding certain
specified noise levels; and (iii) limitations on the number of average daily commercial departures
which can occur at the facility, either directly or through a limit on the permitted number of annual
commercial passengers. Even prior to 1985, the controlled nature of the airport's operation, arising
from a wide range of political, environmental, social and economic considerations, had become
institutionalized to the extent that the regulated nature of the airport was a definitional component
of its character as an air transportation facility.
6. The 1985 Settlement Agreement and confirming judgment were not intended to, and
did not: (i) create any rights in favor of any persons other than the Settling Parties; or (ii) make the
Settling Parties (other than the County) or any other person, parties to, or third party beneficiaries
of, any contractual agreement between the County, as airport proprietor of JWA, and the United
States of America (or any of its agencies).
II. BASIS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THE 1985 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
7. On December 5, 2000, the Board, by a unanimous vote, directed the County
Executive Officer ( "CEO') to work with the City to study the potential of extending certain
restrictions at JWA beyond December 31, 2005. The Board agendized this matter on December 5,
2000, as a result of a request by the City to review the possibility of amending the 1985 Settlement
Agreement to extend beyond 2005, and the desire of the County for amendments to certain other
terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, that would increase airport capacity and
not adversely affect safe airport operations.
8. On May 22, 2001, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU')
between the County and the City pursuant to which the County would act as lead agency (with the
STIPULATION AND /PROPOSED/ ORDER 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City designated a responsible agency) in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(`EIR ") that would support County and City approval of one of the various project case scenarios
identified in the EIR regarding amendments to the terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement
Agreement concerning restrictions at JWA. This EIR was designated as EIR 582 and was
circulated for public review and comment pursuant to, and consistent with, CEQA and CEQA
GUIDELINES requirements.
9. Final EIR 582 was found complete and adequate under CEQA by the Board of
Supervisors on February 26, 2002. On June 25, 2002, the Board:
(a) Certified Final EIR 582 as adequate and complete and as containing all
information required by CEQA, the CEQA GUIDELINES, and the County
Local CEQA Procedures Manual;
(b) Adopted the statutorily required Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations consistent with
CEQA and CEQA GUIDELINES requirements; and
(c) Authorized execution of this Amended Stipulation after its approval and
execution by the City, SPON and AWG.
10. The three project case scenarios ( "Scenarios ") evaluated in EIR 582 proposed
modifications to some of the provisions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement, including an increase
in permitted operational and facility capacity and an extension of the term of the agreement. In
order to permit the Board and the City to determine the final terms of any amendments to the 1985
Settlement Agreement, the three Scenarios were each evaluated in the EIR to an equivalent level of
detail that would permit the County and the City to adopt amendments to the 1985 Settlement
Agreement consistent with all or a portion of any Scenario. Each of the three Scenarios proposed
for the County's and the City's consideration assumed modifications to the terms of the 1985
STIPULATION AND /PROPOSED) ORDER 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Settlement Agreement prior to December 31, 2005. Each of the three Scenarios contemplated
modifications that would increase noise regulated departures and passenger service levels.
11. The goals and objectives of the County, as the lead agency, the project proponent
and the airport proprietor, in preparing EIR 582 and entering into this Amended Stipulation,
included:
(a) Recognizing that aviation noise management is crucial to the continued I
increase in airport capacity;
(b) Modifying some restrictions on aircraft operations at JWA under the 1985
Settlement Agreement in a manner that would provide increased air
transportation opportunities to the air traveling public using JWA without
any adverse effect on aircraft safety;
(c) Continuing the County's historical protection of the environmental interests
and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA; and
(d) Maintaining a reasonable balance between air service and local
environmental impacts of that service in a manner that controls and
minimizes the County's risk of noise damage claims that otherwise might be
made against the County.
These objectives are consistent with a long - standing and adopted policy of the
County to operate JWA in a manner that provides the maximum air transportation opportunities at
JWA, while ensuring that airport operations do not unreasonably result in adverse environmental
effects on surrounding communities.
12. In light of these circumstances, goals and objectives, and for ease of reference, the
Settling Parties agree, subject to the approval of the Court by entry of a Modified Final Judgment
consistent with this Amended Stipulation ( "the Modified Final Judgment', that this Amended
STIPULATION AND /PROPOSED) ORDER 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation contains all of the obligations of the Settling Parties. The County shall have no
obligation to the City, SPON or AWG, nor shall there be any restriction on the discretion of the
County in its capacity as airport proprietor of JWA, except as that obligation or restriction is
expressly stated in this Amended Stipulation.
13. This Amended Stipulation continues the essential terms and conditions of the 1985
Settlement Agreement regarding the County's development and operation of JWA, with certain
capacity enhancing modifications, including:
(a) Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class A flights and eliminating
the Class AA Aircraft definition/distinction, effective upon execution of the
Modified Final Judgment by the Court. The definition/distinction for Class E
Aircraft is preserved unaffected by this Amended Stipulation;
(b) Increasing the number of regulated flights allocated to passenger
Commercial Carvers at JWA from seventy-three (73) ADDs to eighty-five
(85) ADDS, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015;
(c) Increasing the MAP level served at the Airport :rrom 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP,
beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015;
(d) Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft"
(i.e., Class E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of
passengers served by Commuter Aircraft, Class E Aircraft and Class A
Aircraft in regularly scheduled commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP,
beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015;
(e) Increasing the number of cargo flights from JWA from two (2) Class A
ADD cargo flights to a total of four (4) Class A ADD cargo flights, for a
srrrur.A77v/V AND IPRVPVSEDJ ORDER 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I
28
total of eighty -nine (89) Class A ADD flights, beginning on January 1, 2003,
through December 31, 2015; and
(f) Increasing the permitted number of commercial passenger loading bridges at
JWA from fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading bridges,
through December 31, 2015.
1111. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Amended Stipulation and the proposed Modified Final Judgment, the
terms below are defined as follows:
14. "ADD" means "average daily departure," which is computed for purposes of the
Plan on an annual basis, from April 1 of each year during which the Plan is in effect, to March 31
of the following year. One ADD authorizes any person requiring ADDS for its operations at JWA
to operate 365 (or 366 in any "leap year ") Authorized Departures during each Plan Year, subject to
the definitions, provisions, conditions and limitations of this Amended Stipulation and
implementing regulations of the County. "ADD" includes all Class A departures, except
emergency or mercy flights, departures resulting from mechanical failures, emergency or weather
diversions to JWA necessary to reposition an aircraft into its normal scheduling rotation, the
repositioning of aircraft to another airport in connection with a published change in the previous
schedule of operations of the airline, test or demonstration flights authorized in advance by the
airport director, or charter flights by persons not engaged in regularly scheduled commercial
service at JWA.
15. "Class A Aircraft" means aircraft which: (i) operate at gross takeoff weights at JWA
not greater than the Maximum Permitted Gross Takeoff Weight for the individual aircraft main
landing gear configuration, as set forth in the text of Section 2.30 of the Phase 2 Access Plan, as
STIPULATIONANDIPROPOSEDIORDER 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amended through July 1, 1999; and which (ii) generate actual energy averaged SENEL levels,
averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, as measured at the Departure Monitoring Stations,
which are not greater than the values:
NOISE MONITORING STATION ENERGY AVERAGED DECIBELS
NMS1S:
101.8 dB SENEL
NMS2S:
101.1 dB SENEL
NMS3S:
100.7 dB SENEL
NMS4S:
94.1 dB SENEL
NMS5S:
94.6 dB SENEL
NMS6S:
96.1 dB SENEL
NMS7S:
93.0 dB SENEL
In determining whether an aircraft is a Class A aircraft, its noise performance at the
Departure Monitoring Stations shall be determined at each individual station, and the aircraft must
meet each of the monitoring station criteria, without "trade- offs," in order to qualify as a Class A
aircraft.
16. "Class E Aircraft" means aircraft which: (i) operate at gross takeoff weights at JWA
not greater than the Maximum Permitted Gross Takeoff Weight for the individual aircraft main
landing gear configuration, as set forth in the text of Section 2.30 of the Phase 2 Access Plan, as
amended through July 1, 1999; and which (ii) generate actual energy averaged SENEL levels,
averaged during each Noise Compliance Period, as measured at the Departure Monitoring Stations,
which are not greater than the values:
NOISE MONITORING STATION ENERGY AVERAGED DECIBELS
NMS IS:
93.5 dB SENEL
NMS2S:
93.0 dB SENEL
NMS3S:
89.7 dB SENEL
NMS4S:
86.0 dB SENEL
NMS5S:
86.6 dB SENEL
NMS6S:
86.6 dB SENEL
NMS7S:
86.0 dB SENEL
SID-U" IIUN AND 1PROPUJE01 ORDER 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In determining whether an aircraft is a Class E Aircraft, its noise performance at the
Departure Monitoring Stations shall be determined at each individual noise monitoring station, and
the aircraft must meet each of the noise monitoring station criteria, without "trade- offs," in order to
qualify as a Class E Aircraft.
17. "Commercial Air Carrier" or "Air Carrier" means any person other than a
Commuter Air Carrier or Commuter Cargo Carrier who operates Regularly Scheduled Air Service
into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight, cargo, or for any other
commercial purpose. For purposes of the Plan, Commercial Air Carrier includes all Commercial
Cargo Carriers.
18. "Commercial Cargo Carrier" means any person which is an Air Carrier, but which
conducts its operations at JWA solely for the purpose of carrying Commercial Cargo with aircraft
regularly configured with zero (0) passenger seats available to the general public, and which does
not offer passenger service to the public in connection with its operations at JWA.
19. "Commuter Air Carrier" or "Commuter Carrier" means any person who: (i) operates
Regularly Scheduled Air Service into and out of JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers,
freight, cargo, or for any other commercial purpose; (ii) with Class E Aircraft regularly configured
with fifty (50) or fewer passenger seats; and (iii) operating at gross take -off weights of not more
than sixty thousand (60,000) pounds. For the purposes of the Plan, Commuter Air Carrier includes
all Commuter Cargo Carriers.
20. "Commuter Cargo Carrier" means any person which is a Commuter Air Carrier, but
which conducts its operations at JWA solely for the purpose of carrying Commercial Cargo with
aircraft regularly configured with zero (0) passenger seats available to the general public, and
which does not offer passenger service to the public in connection with its operations at JWA.
STIPULATIONAND [PROPOSED] ORDER 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21. "Departure Monitoring Stations" means JWA noise monitoring stations NMS1S,
NMS2S, NMS3S, NMS4S, NMS5S, NMS6S and NMS7S.
22. "EIR 582 Project" means the flight, passenger and gate increases and the facility
improvements authorized by this Amended Stipulation together with the mitigation measures
adopted by the Board pursuant to Resolution No., The Settling Parties agree that
implementation of the EIR 582 Project may result in modifications to the Airport that are generally
described in Exhibit 2 -4 to EIR 582. The Settling Parties also agree that Exhibit 2 -4 is only a
conceptual plan and that further study by the County will likely require modifications to, or
increases in, the areas depicted for commercial or cargo aircraft facilities or operations.
23. "MAP" means million annual passengers, consisting of the sum of actual deplaning
and enplaning passengers served by all Commercial and Commuter .Air Carriers at JWA during
each Plan Year, except that it does not include passengers excluded from such calculations under
relevant provisions of the Plan.
24. "Noise Compliance Period" means each calendar quarter during the Project Period.
25. "Plan" means the Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation for John
Wayne Airport, Orange County, and any successor regulations or amendments to the Plan.
26. "Plan Year" means each period during the Project Period, from April 1 of one year,
to March 31 of the following year; except that the County shall have the discretion, beginning
January 1, 2003, to redefine "Plan Year" as the calendar year (January 11 to December 31).
27. "Project Period" means the period from February 26, 19135, to December 31, 2015.
28. "Regularly Scheduled Air Service" means all operations conducted by Regularly
Scheduled Commercial Users at JWA.
29. "Regularly Scheduled Commercial User" means any person conducting aircraft
operations at JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight or cargo where such operations:
(i) are operated in support of, advertised, or otherwise made available to members of the public by
S7 1PULATION AND /PROPOSED / ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any means for commercial air transportation purposes, and members of the public may travel or
ship Commercial Cargo on the flights; (ii) the flights are scheduled to occur, or are represented as
occurring (or available) at specified times and days; and (iii) the person conducts, or proposes to
operate, departures at JWA at a frequency greater than two (2) times per week during any
consecutive three (3) week period.
30. "Regulated ADDS" means average daily departures by Class A aircraft operated by
Commercial Air Carriers. Supplemental Class A Authorized Departures, as defined in Section 4.0
of the Phase 2 Access Plan, are also "Regulated" within the meaning of this section.
31. "RON" means any aircraft operated by a Qualified Air Carrier or Qualified
Commuter Carrier which "remains overnight' at JWA.
IV. STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING JUDGMENT
In recognition and consideration of the foregoing recitals and definitions, the Settling
Parties agree to this Amended Stipulation and for a related and conforming Modified Final
Judgment of the Court that contains the terms stated below.
A. FLIGHT AND MAP LIMITS
32. Prior to December 31, 2002, there shall be a maximum of seventy -three (73)
Commercial Air Carrier Class A and Class AA ADDS and two (2) Commercial Cargo Air Carrier
Class A ADDS serving JWA.
33. No aircraft generating noise levels greater than that permitted for Class A
aircraft shall be permitted to engage in Regularly Scheduled Air Service at JWA.
34. Prior to December 31, 2002, JWA shall serve no more than 8.4 MAP during
any Plan Year.
S11PULAMUIVAND IPRUPUISCDI UIRDCR It
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
35. Beginning January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there shall be a
maximum of eighty -five (85) Class A ADDS allocated to Regularly Scheduled Commercial
Passenger Carriers.
36. In addition to, and beyond the eighty -five (85) Class A ADDS permitted
under Paragraph 35 above, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there shall
be a maximum of four (4) Commercial Cargo Class A ADDS permitted for Commercial Cargo Air
Carriers for a combined total maximum of eighty -nine (89) Class A ADDS (commercial and
cargo).
37. Beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, JWA shall serve
no more than 9.8 MAP during any Plan Year.
B. FACILITY CONSTRAINTS
38. Prior to December 31, 2002, there shall be a maximum of fourteen (14)
loading bridges in use at JWA. Each loading bridge may serve no more than one (1) flight at a
time.
39. Beginning January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015, there may be a
maximum of eighteen (18) loading bridges in use at JWA. Each loading bridge may serve no more
than one (1) flight at a time.
40. During the term of this Amended Stipulation (through December 31, 2015),
all air carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more passenger seats shall load and
unload passengers only through the loading bridges in use at JWA, except that:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2006, air carrier aircraft regularly configured with
ninety (90) or more passenger seats may load and unload passengers
by stairway or other means not involving the use of loading bridges
(hardstands) as (i) the Airport Director reasonably deems necessary
to accommodate commercial aircraft operations authorized by this
STIPULATIONAND /PROPOSED/ ORDER 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amended Stipulation, and (ii) only to the extent that the total of the
loading bridges and the number of "hardstands" does not exceed
eighteen (18);
(b) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more
passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other
means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport
Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate commercial
aircraft operations authorized by this Amended Stipulation during
periods when construction and maintenance activities at or on the
commercial terminal, terminal apron or proximate taxiways
temporarily precludes or impairs the use of any loading bridges;
(c) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more
passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other
means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport
Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate temporarily
commercial aircraft operations authorized by this Amended
Stipulation during any airport or airfield emergency condition which
precludes or impairs the regular use of any loading bridges; and
(d) Air Carrier aircraft regularly configured with ninety (90) or more j
passenger seats may load and unload passengers by stairway or other
means not involving the use of loading bridges as the Airport
Director reasonably deems necessary to accommodate commercial
aircraft operations authorized by this Amended Stipulation during
any period where compliance with safety or security directives of any
federal agency with lawful jurisdiction over airport operations or
activities [including, but not necessarily limited to, the Federal
Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") and the Transportation Security
Agency ( "TSA ")], imposes or adopts any safety or security directive
STIPULATIONANDIPROPOSEDIORDER 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or requirement affecting the airport which impairs the full and
effective utilization of the loading bridges at the airport.
C. OTHER STIPULATED PROVISIONS
41. The existing curfew regulations and hours for JWA, contained in County
Ordinance 3505, and the provisions of paragraph 4, at page 62, of Board of Supervisors'
Resolution 85 -255 (February 26, 1985), reducing the curfew exemption threshold to 86.0 dB
SENEL, shall remain in effect for no less than five (5) years past the end of the Project Period.
Nothing in this paragraph precludes or prevents the JWA Airport Director, his designated
representative, or some other person designated by the Board, from exercising reasonable
discretion in authorizing a regularly scheduled departure or landing during the curfew hours where:
(1) such arrival or departure was scheduled to occur outside of the curfew hours; and (2) the arrival
or departure has been delayed because of mechanical problems, weather or air traffic control
delays, or other reasons beyond the control of the operator. In addition, this paragraph does not
prohibit authorization of bona fide emergency or mercy flights during the curfew hours by aircraft
that would otherwise be regulated by the curfew provisions and limitations.
42. In mitigation of the EIR 508/EIS Project, and for other reasons, the County
has adopted a "General Aviation Noise Ordinance" ( "GANO ") (County Ordinance 3505). One
principal policy objective of the GANO is to exclude from operations at JWA general aviation
aircraft that generate noise levels greater than the noise levels permitted for aircraft used by
Commercial Air Carriers. During the Project Period, the County shall maintain in effect an
ordinance that meets this basic policy objective. Nothing in this Amended Stipulation precludes
the County from amending the GANO to enhance or facilitate its reasonable achievement of its
principal purpose, or the effective enforcement of its provisions.
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED/ ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43. During the Project Period, the City, SPON, AWG, their agents, attorneys,
officers, elected officials and employees agree that they will not challenge, impede or contest, by or
in connection with litigation, or any adjudicatory administrative proceedings, or other action, the
funding, implementation or operation of the EIR 582 Project, or any facilities that are reasonably
related to implementation of the EIR 582 Project at JWA, by the County and the United States; nor
will they urge other persons to do so, or cooperate in any such efforts by other parties except as
may be expressly required by law. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the Settling Parties from
submitting comments or presenting testimony regarding any future environmental documentation
prepared by the County with respect to implementation of the EIR 582 Project.
44. The Settling Parties recognize that it is in the best interests of each of them
and in furtherance of the interests, health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Orange County that
any potential disputes, controversies or claims with respect to the growth and expansion of JWA
through the Project Period be resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Amended Stipulation and the Modified Final Judgment. This Amended Stipulation does not
constitute an admission of the sufficiency or insufficiency of any claims, allegations, assertions,
contentions or positions of any other party, or the sufficiency or insufficiency of the defenses of
any such claims, allegations, contentions or positions.
45. Upon execution of this Amended Stipulation, the Settling Parties, their
agents, officers, directors, elected officials and employees each agree to release, acquit and forever
discharge each other, their heirs, employees, officials, directors, supervisors, consultants and
successors -in- interest from any and all claims, actions, lawsuits, causes of action, liabilities,
demands, damages, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which may arise from or concern the
subject matter of this Amended Stipulation, including, but not limited to, the legal adequacy of EIR
582, the legal adequacy of the terms and conditions for the modification of the 1985 Settlement
STIPULATION AND /PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement and confirming judgment, and/or the legal adequacy of any of the amendments to the
Plan through the Project Period. Nothing in this release shall limit in any way the ability of any
Settling Party to enforce the terms, conditions and provisions of this ?mended Stipulation and the
Modified Final Judgment.
46. All Settling Parties to this Amended Stipulation specifically acknowledge
that they have been informed by their legal counsel of the provisions of section 1542 of the
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, and they expressly waive and relinquish any rights or benefits available
to them under this statute, except as provided in this Amended Stipulation. CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE §1542 provides:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does
not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the
release, which if known by him must have materially affected his
settlement with the debtor.
Notwithstanding section 1542 of the CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, or any other
statute or rule of law of similar effect, this Amended Stipulation shall be given its full force and
effect according to each and all of its express terms and provisions, including those related to any
unknown or unsuspected claims, liabilities, demands or causes of action. All parties to this
Amended Stipulation have been advised specifically by their legal counsel of the effect of this
waiver, and they expressly acknowledge that they understand the significance and consequence of
this express waiver of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1542. This waiver is not a mere recital, but rather
forms a material part of the consideration for this Amended Stipulation.
47. During the Project Period, the Settling Parties agree that they will jointly
defend, using their best efforts, any pending or future litigation, administrative investigation,
administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement .action or claim against the
County related to, or arising from, this Amended Stipulation, or the agreement(s) embodied in this
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER lip
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amended Stipulation, the EIR 582 Project at JWA, or the County's regulations or actions in
implementation of, or enforcing limitations upon, the Project. If SPON does not have adequate
funds to retain legal counsel, SPON shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if
SPON cooperates with the other Settling Parties in the litigation or administrative proceeding if,
and to the extent, requested by the other Settling Parties.
48. During the Project Period, the City (but not SPON or AWG) agrees that it
will, at its own expense, reimburse the County for all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred
by the County in defending any pending or future litigation, administrative investigation,
administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement action or claim against the
County related to, or arising from, this Amended Stipulation or the agreement embodied in this
Amended Stipulation, the EIR 582 Project, any facilities generally consistent with, and reasonably
related to, implementation of the EIR 582 Project at JWA, or the County's regulations or actions in
implementation of, or enforcing limitations upon, the Project. The City's obligations pursuant to
this paragraph do not extend to any litigation or enforcement action initiated against the County by
any other Settling Party alleging a breach by the County of this Amended Stipulation. Reasonable
costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of retaining experts or consultants to provide legal
counsel, the costs of preparing documents for introduction in any litigation, administrative
investigation, administrative adjudication, or any similar or related enforcement action or claim, or
to assist legal counsel, the costs of reproducing any document, and reasonable expenses such as
transportation, meals, lodging and communication incurred in attending meetings or proceedings
related to litigation or administrative proceedings. The County shall be obligated to defend, using
its best efforts, any litigation, administrative challenge or enforcement proceeding related to this
Amended Stipulation. In recognition of the County's obligation to defend using its best efforts, the
County shall have full discretion to select counsel, experts or other professionals to represent or
STIPULATIONAND /PROPOSED] ORDER ri
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
advise it in respect of any such matters. The City shall reimburse the County for all reasonable
litigation or administrative attorneys' fees or costs within thirty (30) days after an invoice is
submitted to the City for reimbursement. The rights and obligations set forth in this paragraph shall
survive the termination or expiration of this Amended Stipulation.
49. The Settling Parties acknowledge that the County intends, in the near future,
to develop amendments to the current Plan and/or other airport regulations relative, among other
issues, to the manner in which the County allocates Class A ADDs and exempt aircraft operating
opportunities within the MAP level agreed to in this Amended Stipulation. The development and
implementation of amendments to the Plan was contemplated by, and is considered an element of,
all of the Scenarios evaluated in EIR 582, and the parties agree that no additional or ftirther
environmental documentation is required under CEQA or NEPA to allow the County to develop or
implement the amendments.
50. Any notices given under this Amended Stipulation shall be addressed to the
Parties as follows:
FOR THE COUNTY:
Richard Oviedo
Deputy County Counsel
John Wayne Airport
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
with a copy to: Michael Scott Gable
Lori D. Ballance
Gable Dillon & Ballance LLP
1921 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
FOR THE CITY: City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
FOR SPON: Roy B. Woolsey
113 Via Venezia
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5516
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1 FOR AWG: Barbara E. Lichman
Chevalier, Allen & Lichman
2 2603 Main Street, Suite 1000
3 Irvine, CA 92714
4 Any party may, at any time during the Project Period, change the person designated to receive
5 notices under this Amended Stipulation by giving written notice of the change to the other parties.
6
7
V. ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT
8
9 51. If a dispute arises concerning the interpretation of, or a Settling Party's compliance
10 with, the Modified Final Judgment, and if no exigent circumstances require immediate court
11 proceedings, any Settling Party interested in the interpretation or compliance shall provide written
12 notice of the dispute to the other Settling Parties. Within twenty -one (21) days of the sending of
13 such notice, the parties shall meet in person (or by their authorized representatives) and attempt in
14
good faith to resolve the dispute.
15
16 52. If a dispute has not been resolved within thirty-five (35) days after the sending of
17 written notice, or if exigent circumstances require immediate court proceedings, any Settling Party
18 may initiate enforcement proceedings in this action. A Settling Party seeking to compel another
19 Settling Party to obey the Modified Final Judgment must file a Motion to Enforce Judgment. The
20 Settling Parties agree not to resort to, request, or initiate proceedings involving the contempt
21
powers of the Court in connection with a Motion to Enforce Judgment.
22
23 53. If the Court determines that a Settling Party is not complying with the Modified
24 Final Judgment, the Court shall issue an order, in the nature of specific performance of the
25 Modified Final Judgment, requiring the defaulting party to comply with the Modified Final
26 Judgment within a reasonable period of time. If the defaulting party fails to comply with the order,
27 any other Settling Party may then seek enforcement under any authorized processes of the Court.
28
STIPULATIONAND /PROPOSED / ORDER 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VI. TERM OF AGREEMENT
54. This Amended Stipulation is contingent upon the Court's entry of the Modified
Final Judgment such that the obligations, duties and rights of the parties are only those that are
contained within this Amended Stipulation amending the terms and conditions of the 1985
Settlement Agreement. If the Modified Final Judgment is not entered, this Amended Stipulation
shall be null and void, and shall not be admissible for any purpose. Unless the Modified Final
Judgment is vacated at an earlier date in the manner described in paragraphs 55 through 60, this
Amended Stipulation and Modified Final Judgment shall remain in full force and effect during the
Project Period.
55. The City, SPON and/or AWG may, after consultation with one another, file a
Motion to Vacate Judgment if, in any action that they have not initiated:
(a) Any trial court enters a final judgment that determines that the limits on the
number of: (i) Regulated Class A ADDS; (ii) MAP levels; or (iii) facilities
improvements contained in this Amended Stipulation or the curfew
provisions of paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation are
unenforceable for any reason, and any of these stipulated limitations are
exceeded;
(b) Any trial court issues a preliminary injunction that has the effect of
precluding implementation or enforcement of the limits on the number of
Regulated Class A ADDS, MAP levels or facilities improvements
contained in this Amended Stipulation or the curfew provisions of
paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation based upon a finding of a
probability of making at trial any of the determinations described in
subparagraph (a) above, and such preliminary injunction remains in effect
SrrPULA 1701V AND (PROPOSED/ ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for a period of one (1) year or more, and any of these stipulated limitations
are exceeded; or
(c) Any appellate court issues a decision or order that makes any of the
determinations described in subparagraphs (a) or (b) above, or affirms a trial
court ruling based upon such a determination, and any of these stipulated
limitations are exceeded.
56. The County may file a Motion to Vacate Judgment if:
(a) The City, SPON or AWG fail to comply with the provisions of paragraph 43
of this Amended Stipulation;
(b) A trial or appellate court issues an order that has the effect of prohibiting the
County from implementing or enforcing any of the operational restrictions or
facilities limitations required by this Amended Stipulation; or
(c) The FAA, or any successor agency, withholds federal grant funds from the
County, or declines to permit the County to impose or use passenger facility
charges at JWA based on a determination by the FAA that the adoption or
implementation of all or a portion of this Amended Stipulation is illegal or
unconstitutional as a matter of federal law, and (i) the FAA has issued an
order or other determination to that effect which is subject to judicial
review; and (ii) the County has, using reasonable efforts, been unable to
secure a judicial order overruling or vacating the FAA order or other
determination.
This provision shall not apply to activities expressly permitted by paragraph 43 of
this Amended Stipulation.
STIPULA TIONAND IPROPOSEDI ORDER $l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Court shall,
after consideration of a motion to vacate judgment, enter an order vacating the Modified Final
Judgment if the Court determines that any of the conditions described in paragraphs 55 or 56 have
occurred. Once vacated, the Modified Final Judgment and this Amended Stipulation shall be null
and void, unenforceable and inadmissible for any purpose, and the Settling Parties will, pursuant to
paragraph 58, be deemed to be in the same position that they occupied before the Modified Final
Judgment and this Amended Stipulation were executed and approved, and the Settling Parties shall
have the full scope of their legislative and administrative prerogatives.
58. If the Modified Final Judgment is vacated before December 31, 2005, the Settling
Parties agree that the original 1985 Settlement Agreement, the original Confirming Judgment and
the seven (7) subsequent amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect through December 31, 2005, if, for any reason, all or a portion of this Amended
Stipulation is determined to be invalid and the Modified Final Judgment is vacated.
59. For the period after December 31, 2005, if any of the events described in paragraphs
55 or 56 occur during the Project Period, this Amended Stipulation and the Modified Final
Judgment shall remain in full force and effect with respect to those terms and conditions or
portions thereof that are not affected by the event(s) unless the court has granted a motion to vacate
judgment pursuant to paragraphs 55 and 56.
VII. MODIFICATION
60. The limitations on Regulated Class A ADDS, MAP levels and facilities provided for
in this Amended Stipulation, the provisions of paragraphs 41 and 42 of this Amended Stipulation,
and the agreements of the City, SPON and AWG not to contest or impede implementation of the
EIR 582 Project (paragraph 43 of this Amended Stipulation), are fundamental and essential aspects
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ZA
11
21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of this Amended Stipulation, and were agreed upon with full recognition of the possibility that
I economic, demographic, technological, operational or legal changes not currently contemplated
could occur during the Project Period. It was in recognition of these essential aspects of this
Amended Stipulation, and the inability to accurately predict certain future conditions that the
Settling Parties have agreed to the specific and express provisions of paragraph 55 of this Amended
Stipulation. The Settling Parties fiirther acknowledge that this Amended Stipulation provides for
the Settling Parties to perform undertakings at different times, and that the performance of certain
of the undertakings, once accomplished, could not be undone. Accordingly, except as provided
herein, the Settling Parties expressly waive any potential right to seek to modify or vacate the
terms of this Amended Stipulation or the Modified Final Judgment, except by written mutual
agreement.
I Dated:
I STIPULATIONAND (PROPOSED/ ORDER
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendants, the
County of Orange and the Orange County Board of
Supervisors
Michael Scott Gatzke
Lori D. Ballance
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Lo
Lori D. Ballance
County Counsel, County of Orange
By:
Richard Oviedo
Deputy County Counsel
1
2
3
4
5 Dated:
6
7
8
9
10 Dated:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Dated:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and
Crossdefendant, the City of Newport Beach
Robert H. Burnham
City Attorney of Newport Beach
Robert H. Burnham
Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and
Crossdefendant, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)
Roy B. Woolsey
Roy B. Woolsey
Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant and
Crossdefendant, Airport Working Group (AWG)
Barbara E. Lichman
Chevalier, Allen & Lichrrian
m
Barbara E. Lichman
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT
1. In 1985, the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our
Newport, and the Airport Working Group ("Settling Parties ") entered into a Stipulation for Entry
of Final Judgment by Certain Settling Parties, settling all pending actions and claims related to the
1985 Master Plan of John Wayne Airport ( "JWA') and related actions ( "the 1985 Settlement
Agreement'). On December 13, 1985, this Court entered Final Judgment on Stipulation for Entry
of Judgment by Certain Settling Parties which accepted the stipulation of the Settling Parties and
incorporated certain portions of their stipulation into that judgment. The principal terms of the
1985 Settlement Agreement relate to restrictions and limitations on aircraft operations and
commercial passenger facilities.
2. In the intervening years, by stipulations of the Settling Parties, orders of the Court have
been entered to reflect certain modifications in the agreement of the Settling Parties which were
contained in stipulations presented to and approved by the Court. None of these modifications
further restricted operations or facilities as compared to the 1985 Settlement Agreement.
3. The Settling Parties have now presented to the Court an Eighth Supplemental Stipulation
by the County of Orange, California, the City of Newport Beach, Stop Polluting Our Newport, and
the Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc., Amending the Terms and Conditions of the
Previous Stipulations of those Parties ( "Amended Stipulation ") and Requesting a Modification of
an Executory Judgment of the Court and [Proposed] Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
A. The Amended Stipulation contains many of the terms of the 1985 Settlement Agreement
and the seven (7) previous stipulations of the Settling Parties and for clarity and ease of reference,
the Amended Stipulation is deemed to contain all of the agreements and obligations of the Settling
Parties.
STIPULATIONAND IPROPOSEDI ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. The provisions of paragraphs 13 through 42 and 51 through 59 of the Amended
Stipulation are hereby incorporated as part of this Modified Final Judgment.
C. The Settling Parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys' fees in connection
with the entry of this Modified Final Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: .2002
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED/ ORDER
The Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
United States District Judge
IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL
The County of Orange ( "County"), the City ofNewport Beach ( "City"), the Airport Working Group
( "AWG ") and Stop Polluting our Newport ( "SPON ") are considering amendments to the 1985 JWA
Settlement Agreement. These amendments contemplate an increase in the number ofnoise regulated
average daily departures (ADD), permitted passenger service levels and passenger loading bridges
beyond the levels specified in the 1985 Settlement Agreement and an extension of the term of the
agreement to December 31, 2015 (Amended Stipulation).
As part of the implementation of the Amended Stipulation, the parties recognize that it is and will be
desirable to discuss the Amended Stipulation and its implementation with various federal officials,
airport users and other interested parties in order to maximize the opportunities for effective
implementation of the proposed capacity increases, including, but not limited to, the United States
Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, members of Congress, the Air
Transport Association, the Air Cargo Association, and commercial passenger and cargo air carriers
(Interested Persons).
The purpose of this Protocol is to confirm the general procedures the parties will follow to allow
them to work cooperatively together in this effort. Successful implementation of the Amended
Stipulation will be significantly enhanced if they communicate effectively with each other, and with
interested or relevant third parties, regarding implementation issues. In addition, the City, SPON and
AWG each have legitimate interests in monitoring the implementation process and providing input
and assistance to the County regarding the strategy of implementation; both in the initial phases of
implementation and as implementation issues arise during the course ofthe implementation process.
A cooperative implementation approach supported by candid and effective communication between
the parties also will facilitate the ability of each party to ensure that it and its constituencies realize
the full benefits for which they have negotiated in arriving at the final terms of the Amended
Stipulation. Nothing in this Protocol, however, is intended to interfere with, constrain or assign the
customary proprietary prerogatives of the County as the proprietor of John Wayne Airport regarding
the implementation actions it needs to take in order to meet its obligations under the Amended
Stipulation.
It is the mutual goal of the parties to successfully implement the Amended Stipulation with a
minimum risk of litigation or quasi - adjudicatory administrative proceedings.
PROTOCOL
1. Each party shall each designate a representative, and notify the other parties of that
party's designated representative(s). The representatives shall be responsible for coordinating
meetings and communicating relevant information to the other parties ( "staff coordinating
committee" or "SCC "). The SCC shall meet at a fixed time and no less frequently than every two
weeks.
2. At each meeting of the SCC, each of the parties representative(s) will advise the other
parties of substance of their communications with third parties on implementation issues, including
EXHIBIT C
communications with federal elected, legislative or administrative officials regarding the Amended
Stipulation or any issue related to implementation of the Amended Stipulation. Each party shall, at
each SCC meeting:
(a) identify any third party meetings or other third party communications they intend to,
or have scheduled since the last meeting of the SCC;
(b) communicate to the other parties the results of any previously scheduled third party
meetings or other third party communications which have been held since the last
meeting of the SCC; and
(c) consistent with the mutual goals of the parties expressed in this protocol, consider in
good faith the input of each of the other parties regarding the ongoing
implementation strategy(s) of the parties.
3. The parties agree that, subsequent to June 25, 2002, meetings will be held with the FAA,
ATA and selected members of Congress as frequently as necessary to achieve the: mutual goals ofthe
parties.
4. After June 25, 2002, the parties, collectively or individually, will, meet with the FAA, ATA,
selected members of Congress and other potentially Interested Persons on any issues concerning the
implementation or continued enforcement of the Amended Stipulation as they deem to be necessary
or advantageous to the implementation of the Amended Stipulation.
5. The parties may retain consultants and lobbyists, as they deem appropriate, to assist in the
presentation to and discussion of issues with Interested Persons. However, for purposes of this
protocol, any communication by any such lobbyist or consultant with any third party shall be deemed
to be a communication of the party.
6. This protocol shall remain in effect until the parties achieve their mutual goals or through
December 31, 2003, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise extended by mutual consent of the
parties.
Airport Director, John Wayne Airport
City Manager, City of Newport Beach
Executive Director, AWG
SPON
2
SIGNATURE
CEQA FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 582
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings
The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), (Public Resources Code § 21081) and the
CEQA Guidelines ( "the Guidelines ") (Guidelines §§ 15091) provide that no public agency,
including a responsible agency, may approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental
Impact Report ( "EIR ") has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects of the
project on the environment unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each
finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record,
are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment ( "Finding 1 ").
(2) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency ( "Finding 2 ").
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report ( "Finding 3 ").
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the public
agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
In addition, CEQA requires a public agency to make a finding that the EIR reflects the public
agency's independent review and judgement. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach City Council ( "Council ") expressly finds that it has
independently reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report, Final EIR 582 (SCH No.
20010111068), for the John Wayne Airport ("JWA ") Settlement Agreement Amendment
( "Amended Stipulation ") and that the final EIR is a full and complete disclosure of the
environmental impacts of the scenarios analyzed. These findings are to reflect the City's
independent review of the record, and its independent judgment.
Final EIR 582 identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, prior to and
after mitigation, that may occur as a result of approval of the Proposed Project and approval
and execution of the Amended Stipulation. Orange County, as the lead agency under CEQA
and under the terms of a May 22, 2001 MOU between the County and the City, found EIR 582
adequate and complete under CEQA on February 26, 2002, and adopted a formal certification
resolution on June 25, 2002. In deciding whether to approve the Amended Stipulation, the City
has considered the EIR as prepared jointly by the County and the City and certified by the
EXHIBIT D
County. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Council adopts
these Findings as part of its approval of the Amended Stipulation.
In conjunction with its adoption of these Findings, the Council has reviewed and considered a
substantial amount of material, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Draft EIR 582 and all appendices and technical reports thereto;
b. Comments and Responses to Comments on Draft EIR 582, including a list of all
persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting;
C. Transmittal packages to the Orange County Airport Commission dated February
6, and June 5, 2002;
d. Minutes of the Orange County Airport Commission meetings held February 6,
and June 5, 2002;
e. Staff Reports to the Orange County Planning Commission dated February 13,
and June 5, 2002;
f. Minutes of the Orange County Planning Commission meetings held on February
13, and June 5, 2002;
g. Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 02 -01 and 02 -05, adopted on February
13, and June 5, 2002, respectively;
h. Letter from Supervisor Silva to the Board of Supervisors dated February 26,
2002 and the AIT to the Board of Supervisors for the June: 25, 2002, public
meeting on Final EIR 582;
L Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors public meetings held on February 26,
and June 25, 2002;
j. Public testimony provided at the Board of Supervisors public meetings held on
February 26, and June 25, 2002;
k. Staff report to the Board of Supervisors dated June 25, 2002;
I. Board of Supervisors' Resolutions relating to the Proposed Project and Final EIR
582, including all attachments thereto;
M. Report to City Council from JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Committee,
dated June 25, 2002; and
n. All attachments and documents incorporated by reference identified in items a.
through m. above.
2
1.2 Organization /Format of Findings
In compliance with the statutory requirements, the Findings are organized as follows:
(1) Significant effects that cannot be mitigated to below the level of significance;
(2) Effects that were determined to have been mitigated to below a level of
significance;
(3) Effects found not to be significant;
(4) Significant cumulative effects;
(5) Cumulative effects determined not to be significant;
(6) Feasibility of project alternatives;
(7) Mitigation measures considered but not proposed for adoption; and,
(8) Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Each of these categories is accompanied by a discussion of significant effects, mitigation
measures relevant to the specific effects being considered, Findings, and facts in support of
those Findings.
1.3 Program Level EIR
EIR 582 was prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Program EIR "...may be prepared on a
series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1)
Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with
issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a
continuing program, or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing
statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can
be mitigated in similar ways."
The Amended Stipulation may lead to facility improvements at JWA. EIR 582 evaluated the
reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Proposed Project, but is not a construction -
level document. Subsequent environmental documentation is required to address the
construction impacts associated with any facility improvements prior to implementation.
1.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
As required by Public Resources Code §21081.6, the County has adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). The Council has reviewed the County's MMRP and
has independently determined that it will assure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The City will not adopt an MMRP because there are no additional mitigation
measures with the City's power.
3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
2.1 Introduction
In early 1985, in response to the need for additional airline service in the County, the Orange
County Board of Supervisors approved a Master Plan for facility improvements ( "the 1985
Master Plan "), an airline access plan, and an associated Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
1985 Master Plan allowed for the construction of the existing terminal facilities. Following
adoption of the 1985 Master Plan and the certification of Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report 508 ( "EIS /EIR 508 "), litigation related to the 1985
Master Plan and EIR 508 was initiated by the County in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, and by the City and two citizens groups, SPON and AWG, in the
Orange County Superior Court. In addition, in April 1985, there was then pending in the
California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, an appeal by the County from an earlier trial
court ruling made under CEQA in respect to an earlier Master Plan for JWA adopted by the
County in 1981 and the related EIR ( "EIR 232 ").
In November 1985, the County, the City, SPON, and AWG reached a comprehensive
agreement settling all pending actions and claims related to the 1985 Master Plan and EIS /EIR
508, and the pending appeal in the 1981 Master Plan /EIR 232 litigation. This agreement
documented a series of stipulations, signed and filed in the various courts in which those
actions were then pending ( "the 1985 Settlement Agreement "). The 1985 Settlement
Agreement was filed in the federal court action initiated by the County in respect of the 1985
Master Plan and EIS /EIR 508, and after hearing, was accepted and confirmed by a final order
of the District Court, in December 1985. The parties have continued to implement the 1985
Settlement Agreement, as amended from time to time, since the final order of the District Court
it was entered.
The 1985 Settlement Agreement required certain modifications to various mitigation measure
restrictions originally adopted by the County at the time it certified EIR 508. Those
modifications were, among other steps, adopted by a subsequent resolution of the Board
amending the original certification and related resolutions adopted by the Board in April 1985 in
adopting the 1985 Master Plan and certifying EIR 508. With adoption of the 1985 Settlement
Agreement, the new 337,900 - square foot Thomas F. Riley Terminal was built and opened to
the public in 1990.
Since 1985, the settling parties have executed various stipulations making minor modifications
to the 1985 Settlement Agreement. One group of these subsequent stipulations has resulted in
the approval, since 1995, of the County's ability to allocate two (2) Class A Average Daily
Departures ( "ADDs ")' to commercial cargo carriers above the Class A ADD levels originally
agreed to in the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The other group of subsequent stipulations have
modified maximum permitted single event noise limits at various monitor station locations to
recognize and accommodate changes in the location of specific monitoring stations, the
installation and use of new noise monitoring equipment, and /or the establishment of uniform
noise abatement departure procedures as specified in FAA Advisory Circular +91 -53A.
' The ADDs at JWA are currently divided into three "classes" based on the noise characteristics of the aircraft on
departure. The Class A flights are the noisiest. The criteria for each of the classes of aircraft are provided in Final
EIR 582.
In the fall of 2000 the City requested that the County join it in considering amendments to the
1985 Settlement Agreement to extend its term beyond 2005. On December 5, 2000, the Board,
by a unanimous vote, directed the County Executive Officer ( "CEO ") to work with the City to
study the potential of extending certain restrictions at JWA beyond December 31, 2005.
On May 22, 2001, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") between the
County and the City pursuant to which the County would act as lead agency (with the City
designated a responsible agency) in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ")
that would support County and City approval of one of the various project case scenarios
identified in the EIR regarding amendments to the terms and conditions of the 1985 Settlement
Agreement concerning restrictions at JWA. This EIR was designated as EIR 582 and was
circulated for public review and comment pursuant to, and consistent with, CEQA and CEQA
GUIDELINE requirements.
Final EIR 582 was found complete and adequate under CEQA by the Board of Supervisors on
February 26, 2002.
On February 26, 2002, the Board also approved Scenario 1, as defined in EIR 582, and as
modified by the Board to include four (4) Commercial Cargo Class A ADDs. Finally, the Board
provided direction to the County Executive Officer and Airport Director to negotiate proposed
amendments to the 1985 Settlement Agreement with the City, SPON and AWG within the
framework of Scenario 1, as amended, and return to the Board for consideration of the
Amended Stipulation amending the 1985 Settlement Agreement. The option of four (4) ADDs
for cargo operations was addressed in Final EIR 582 as a component of Scenarios 2 and 3.
2.2 Description of the Project
The Proposed Project and implementing Amended Stipulation continues the essential terms
and conditions of the 1985 Settlement Agreement regarding the development and operation of
JWA, with certain modifications, including:
• Defining all regulated passenger flights as Class A flights and eliminating Class AA
Aircraft definition /distinction, effective upon execution of the Modified Final Judgment by
the Court. The definition /distinction for Class E Aircraft is preserved unaffected.
Authorizing an increase in the number of regulated flights allocated to passenger
commercial carriers at JWA from seventy -three (73) ADDs to eighty -five (85) ADDs,
beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015.
• Authorizing an increase in the million annual passengers ( "MAP ") level served at JWA
from the 8.4 MAP to 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31,
2015.
Continuing to allow the permitted number of operations by "Exempt Aircraft" (i.e., Class
E Aircraft) to be unlimited, except that the combined number of passengers served by
Commuter Aircraft, Class E Aircraft and Class A Aircraft in regularly scheduled
commercial service will not exceed 9.8 MAP, beginning on January 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2015.
Authorizing an increase in the number of cargo flights from two (2) Class A ADD to four
(4) Class A ADD cargo flights, for a combined total of eighty -nine (89) Class A ADDs
(commercial and cargo flights), beginning on January 1, 2003, through December 31,
2015.
Authorizing an increase in the permitted number of commercial (passenger loading
bridges at JWA from the current fourteen (14) loading bridges to eighteen (18) loading
bridges through December 31, 2015.
2.3 Project Purposes and Objectives
The purpose of the project is to outline the parameters for the operations and facilities at JWA.
The extension and modifications of provisions of the existing 1985 Settlement Agreement will
provide for an orderly transition beyond the existing terms of the agreement. The project goals
of the City are:
To modify some existing restrictions on aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport
to provide increased air transportation opportunities to the .air traveling public
using the airport without adversely affecting safety.
2. To protect the environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the
vicinity of JWA, including their concerns regarding "quality of life" issues relating
to the operation of JWA.
3. To preserve and continue to implement important restrictions on the use of JWA,
"grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of '1990, which reflect
and accommodate historical policy decisions of the Orange County Board of
Supervisors regarding the appropriate point of balance between the competing
interests of the air transportation and aviation community and local residents
living in the vicinity of the airport. These include the existing nighttime operations
restrictions and maximum permitted single -event noise levels.
4. To provide a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport users
(particularly scheduled commercial users) and the air traveling public regarding
the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future period of time.
5. To consider some possible revisions to the regulatory operational restrictions at
JWA in light of current circumstances, and the current needs of the affected
communities and the industry interests represented at JWA.
3.0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL
SIGNIFICANCE
The following section sets forth the significant unavoidable effects of the project, as approved,
and with respect to each effect, identifies one or more of the required findings, states facts in
support of those findings and, as appropriate, refers to the Council's Statement of Overriding
Considerations (See Section 9, below).
3.1 Air Quality
3.1.1 Significant Effects. There are significant adverse air quality impacts of the Proposed
Project as summarized below:
Short-Term Construction Related Impacts - Though the EIR does not address any specific
construction projects, it acknowledges that the Proposed Project might eventually result in
improvements to the passenger terminal and other related facilities at JWA. Construction -
related impacts could result from fugitive dust (particulate matter) and construction equipment
emissions. Construction emissions that would be generated include construction workers
traveling to and from the site, transport of materials to the site, construction equipment, and
fugitive dust. Gaseous emissions would occur from heavy -duty construction equipment and
vehicle travel to and from the site by construction workers. Fugitive dust emissions would be
generated from demolition, grading, hauling/transport, excavation, dumping /reclamation, and
other soil disturbance activities. Gaseous emissions (CO, ROC, NO„ and SOJ may exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( "SCAQMD ") construction thresholds due to
construction equipment and worker vehicles. Emissions cannot be quantified because of a lack
of a specific improvement plan; however, based on findings in previous studies, these
emissions may exceed SCAQMD's construction thresholds. Mitigation Measures AQ -1, AQ -2,
AQ-4 through AQ -7, AQ -10, AQ -12, AQ -14, AQ -15, AQ -17 and AQ -18 proposed in the EIR
relate to possible future specific construction activities that might ultimately be proposed for
study if the Proposed Project is implemented, but which are not part of the Proposed Project in
EIR 582. Since the construction related emissions are not directly related to the Proposed
Project, the County has determined that these mitigation measures, as well as potentially
others, will be considered and evaluated for adoption if and when specific facility improvements
are proposed and the necessary environmental analysis for any such improvements is
prepared. Therefore, Mitigation Measures AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ-4 through AQ -7, AQ -10, AQ -12,
AQ -14, AQ -15, AQ -17 and AQ -18 are not currently being adopted.
Long -Term Operational Emissions - The Proposed Project would result in significant air quality
impacts associated with increased operations at JWA. The emissions of CO and NO, from
aircraft operations would exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The vehicular
emissions associated with the Proposed Project would exceed state 1 -hour standards for NO„
and 24 -hour standards for PM1p. The violations of NO, and PM10 standards would be
inconsistent with the adopted Air Quality Management Plan ( "AQMP ").
Mitigation Measures AQ -3, AQ -8, AQ -9, AQ -11, AQ -13, AQ -16, and AQ -19 through AQ -22
have been proposed and adopted by the County to reduce the significant operational air quality
impacts. Nevertheless, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, the significant
operational air quality impacts for CO, NO„ and PM10 cannot be mitigated to below a level of
significance for the Proposed Project.
7
3.1.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3.
3.1. 3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent
feasible. The air quality impacts remain significant and unmitigable even though the County
incorporated changes and alterations into the design of the Proposed Project, and mitigation
measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or mitigate significant environmental
effects. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that
would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined that the significant effects are
acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations.
The mitigation measures below have been adopted and incorporated by the County as part of
the project to minimize the air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
AQ -3 The County of Orange shall require the following mitigation measures applicable
to alternative fuels:
For airport owned and operated (directly or by contract) vehicles, the County
shall require County owned airport support vehicles to use conventional or
alternative fueled vehicles that achieve exhaust emissions equivalent to a
SULEV or better for new vehicles purchased by John Wayne Airport, with the
exception of emergency vehicles operated by federal, state, or local law
enforcement agencies; fire departments; or to paramedic and rescue vehicles; or
heavy -duty on -road vehicles. The type of alternative fuel vehicles selected shall
reflect the appropriate power technology available at th& time of vehicle
acquisition.
The County shall require third party vehicles (such as shuttles, trucks and vans)
using terminal areas to use low emission alternative fuels (comparable to SULEV
emissions or better) and will provide reasonably necessary facilities to fuel these
vehicles where these facilities are not locally available.
The County shall provide preferential parking for alternative fueled vehicles in
connection with the Proposed Project sufficient to encourage the increased use
of alternative fuel vehicles in the fleet mix for the Basin.
The County shall include in its bid proposals for rental vehicles and taxicab
services in connection with operations of the Proposed Project a provision that
requires the use of conventional or alternative fueled vehicles at the airport that
achieve emissions equivalent to a SULEV or better, in compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 1194.
The County shall use incentives to encourage the use of alternative fueled rental
cars using on- airport RAC facilities.
The County shall use incentives to encourage the use of alternative fueled
vehicles or engines in commercial vehicles using the terminal areas, in cargo
vehicles entering the airport. The County shall require all leaseholders with
diesel vehicles in their fleets to commit to 90 percent clean diesel fueled
vehicles. The County shall also require that diesel fueled delivery and service
H
trucks coming to the site to serve leaseholders be clean diesel fueled. Clean
diesel fueled vehicles are those that comply with the final federal rule regarding
on -road diesel emissions issued in December, 2000, 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and
86.
The County shall encourage an average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.5
passengers for project employees, ensure that employees for both the airport
and non - aviation land uses are provided information on carpooling and mass
transit systems in an effort to increase the average vehicle ridership (AVR) and
reduce traffic congestion and air pollutant emissions; and make available to the
public information on mass transit systems through the use of signage,
pamphlets, information kiosks, or the County's website to promote the usage of
mass transit and reduce traffic congestion as well as air and noise pollution.
The County of Orange shall implement a program to track compliance with
alternative fuel measures for airport shuttles and taxis.
AQ -8 The County of Orange shall advise tenant airlines in writing that the County
supports the use of single or reduced engine taxiing to the extent that it would
provide identifiable air quality benefits to the local community and the region, and
if and to the extent, that it is determined by the FAA and the airlines to be a safe
and efficient operational procedure for air carrier aircraft at JWA. This measure
is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the FAA and airlines.
AQ -9 The County of Orange shall continue its program for the use or conversion of
ground support equipment (GSE) to electric power. This program shall result in
the use or conversion of at least 64 percent of GSE to electric power by 2010.
AQ -11 The County of Orange shall use energy efficient low pressure sodium parking lot
lights.
AQ -13 The County shall promote the use of clean - fueled cargo vehicles through on-
airport access pricing at cargo facilities for clean fuel trucks (CNG, LNG) when
an airport cargo handling facility is constructed by the County.
AQ -16 The County of Orange shall continue to provide for on -site employee services
such as food services, financial services, etc.
AQ -19 The County shall continue to support public agency provisions to establish
airport shuttle bus services from significant trip origin locations in the region.
AQ -20 The County shall continue to manage curbside drop -off by controlling traffic flows
for passengers to use shuttle van services.
AQ -21 The County shall continue to use clear signing and information systems on
roadways to direct traffic through airport.
AQ -22 The County shall require that contractors and concessionaires implement a
procedure where they post routing bus schedules to encourage use of public
transportation by their employees instead of having them drive to work at JWA.
The County will provide links to bus and train schedules on their website.
Mitigation Measure AQ -8 is within the jurisdiction and control, in whole or part, of public
agencies or entities other than the County of Orange. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not
relied upon to determine significance of adverse impacts after mitigation. Mitigation Measures
AQ -3, AQ -13, and AQ -22, as adopted, revise Draft EIR Mitigation Measures AQ -3, AQ -13, and
AQ -22 to clarify the County's responsibilities in connection with each of these mitigation
measures. The City finds that the County has adopted the Mitigation Measures listed above,
that all the adopted Mitigation Measures are outside the scope of the City's jurisdiction and that
the City has not identified any feasible air quality mitigation within its jurisdiction for this project.
3.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
3.2.1 Significant Effect. There are significant adverse toxic air contaminant impacts of the
Proposed Project. The evaluation of the worst- plausible lifetime cancer risks associated with
the Proposed Project identified a significant lifetime cancer risk to all maximally exposed
individuals (MEI) receptor locations. The Proposed Project would also result in a significant
acute health hazard impacts at all receptors.
3.2.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3.
3.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent
feasible. Although changes and alterations were incorporated by the County into project design
of the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or
mitigate significant environmental effects, the toxic air contaminants impacts remain significant
and unmitigable. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no feasible
measures that would mitigate the impacts to below the level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined that the
significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, and other considerations.
The following toxic air contaminant impact mitigation measures have been adopted and
incorporated by the County as part of the project to minimize the toxic air contaminant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project.
TAC -1 The County of Orange shall continue its program for the use or conversion of
ground support equipment (GSE) to electric power. This program shall result in
the use or conversion of at least 64 percent of GSE to electric power by 2010.
TAC -2 The County shall require that all light/medium /heavy diesel vehicles transporting
cargo or Jet -A fuel on JWA be in compliance with the new EPA and CARB rules
for reducing diesel PM10 from exhaust. A reduction of 80 percent of diesel
exhaust PM10 from these sources is assumed with this measure.
These adopted Mitigation Measures are outside the scope of the City's jurisdiction and the City
has not identified any feasible toxic air contaminant mitigation measures within its jurisdiction
for this project.
3.3 Transportation
3.3.1 Significant Effect. When compared to existing conditions, the Proposed Project would
result in significant transportation impacts at four freeway (Interstate /State Route) ramp
locations. It is noted, however, that each of the freeway ramp locations significantly impacted
by the Proposed Project operates at deficient levels of service (Level of Service "F ") under
existing conditions without the project. Accordingly, the project's responsibility for mitigation at
10
these locations consists of participation in the implementation of future improvements on a fair -
share basis.
With implementation of mitigation measure T -2, the identified impacts to freeway ramps would
be reduced to a level below significant. Mitigation measure T -2 is within the jurisdiction, in
whole or in part, of the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans "). Caltrans has
notified the County that certain freeway improvement programs administered by Caltrans are
currently not funded and, therefore, these improvement programs should not be relied upon as
mitigation for congestion impacts due to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, in the event the
proposed T -2 ramp improvements are not implemented prior to initiation of the flight and MAP
levels identified for the Proposed Project, the identified freeway ramp impacts would remain
significant and unmitigated.
SUMMARY OF LOCATIONS WITH
POTENTIAL UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Location
Agencies Involved
1-405 at MacArthur. NB On -Ramp
Caltrans
1-405 at MacArthur: SB On -Ramp
Caltrans
1-405 at MacArthur: NB Off -Ramp
Caltrans
SR -73 at Campus /Irvine: NB On -Ramp
Caltrans
The two additional daily cargo flights which would occur under the Proposed Project are
expected to generate approximately 186 daily trips, which represents an increase of
approximately 0.3 percent in the Proposed Project's total trip generation from that when
anticipated scenario in the EIR. This limited increased in daily vehicle trips attributable to two
additional daily cargo flights would not affect the results of the traffic analysis presented in the
EIR. Additionally, the initiation of increased MAP levels as of January 1, 2003, as compared to
a later date, does not alter the conclusions of the traffic analysis; the EIR traffic analysis
assumes ultimate MAP levels at the outset of the Proposed Project.
3.3.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3.
3.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts and mitigation measure indicate that
the identified significant effects of the project have been reduced or avoided to the extent
feasible. Although changes and alterations were incorporated into project design of the
Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been adopted to substantially avoid or
mitigate significant environmental effects, the transportation impacts for freeway ramps remain
significant and unmitigable. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Council has determined
that the significant effects are acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, and other considerations.
The following transportation mitigation measure has been adopted and incorporated by the
County as part of the project to minimize impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
11
T -2 Prior to an increase in aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport which result in
service levels exceeding 8.4 million annual passengers, the County shall make
every reasonable effort to enter into an agreement with the California
Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ") in order to coordinate the
implementation of appropriate improvements for the freeway ramps impacted
under the Proposed Project, as identified in Draft EIR Tables 3.2 -13 and 3.2 -14.
The County commits to participate in the implementation of the appropriate ramp
improvements, including funding to the extent required by law, based on the
project fair share percentages identified in Table 3.2 -18.
Mitigation Measure T -2, as adopted, revises Draft EIR Mitigation Measure T -2. As revised,
Mitigation Measure T -2 commits the County to participate in the implementation and funding of
appropriate freeway ramp improvements, consistent with the information presented in Draft EIR
Tables 3.2 -13, 3.2 -14 and 3.2 -18. Actual future improvements for the freeway on- and off-
ramps will be determined by studies conducted by Caltrans as part of more comprehensive
studies of the regional transportation system. The studies and recommended improvements
required in order to provide an overall level of service that meets applicable performance
standards for the regional transportation system is beyond the scope of EIR 582. Regardless,
Mitigation Measure T -2 commits the County to participate in the implementation and funding of
improvements of the freeway ramps impacted by the Project. This Mitigation Measure is
outside jurisdiction of the City, and the City has not identified any feasible traffic Mitigation
Measure within its jurisdiction for this Project.
4.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
The following section sets forth the effects of the Proposed Project, as approved, determined to
be mitigated to below a level of significance, and identifies one or more of the required findings
that states facts in support of those findings with respect to each effect.
4.1 Transportation
4.1.1 Significant Effect. When compared to existing conditions, Campus Drive /Bristol Street
North intersection shows a circulation significant project impact with the Proposed Project. This
impact would be below the level of significance with the implementation of the mitigation
measure specified below.
4.1.2 Finding. The Council adopts CEQA Finding 2.
4.1.3 Facts in Support of Finding. The significant circulation impact at the Campus
Drive /Bristol Street North intersection can be mitigated to below a level of significance with the
adoption of the following mitigation measure:
T -1 Promptly upon project approval, the County will initiate the necessary processes
to construct, or cause to be constructed, a third southbound right -turn lane at the
intersection of Campus Drive and North Bristol Street.
The County has adopted Mitigation Measure T -1 and included it in its Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. The Measure is outside the jurisdiction of the City, and the City has identified
no Mitigation Measure within its jurisdiction.
12
5.0 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
This section of the findings summarizes the potential effects found not to be significant upon
implementation of the Proposed Project. The summary of the environmental effects found not
to be significant is based on the environmental analysis provided in the Final EIR, Section 3.0
(Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures).
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 Finding. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant land
use impact.
5.1.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the
potential effects on land use would not be significant for the identified reasons:
• The Proposed Project would not result in conflicts with the General Plan land use
policies and zoning provisions of the County, the City, or neighboring jurisdictions.
The Project site is currently designated on the County of Orange General Plan as
Category 4- Public Facilities. The Proposed Project would not result in additional
residential areas being exposed to noise levels in excess of adopted City General
Plan standards.
• Final EIR 582 evaluated the plans of policies of the applicable regional and local
land use planning agencies and found that the Proposed Project would not result in
conflict with adopted policies.
• The Proposed Project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. The Proposed Project would not result in any development
that would impact established uses either on- or off -site.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with adjacent existing or planned land uses. The
Proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect land uses that would result in significant
land use impacts in the surrounding community. There would be no land use impact because
of increased noise associated with the Proposed Project (see Section 5.2 below).
5.2 Noise
5.2.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant noise impacts on
surrounding noise sensitive land uses.
5.2.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the potential effects of the
Proposed Project on noise levels in the surrounding community and found while the Proposed
Project would result in a greater than 1.5 dB increase, it would be on one commercial area
within the existing 65 CNEL contour. No noise sensitive land uses within the 65 CNEL contour
would be exposed to increases greater than 1.5 dB. The noise contours associated with the
Proposed Project are smaller than those developed as part of the 1985 Master Plan.
13
With regards to having four cargo flights compared to the two cargo flights assumed for
Scenario 1 in Draft EIR 582, Table 3.3 -17 of Appendix F, Noise Technical Report, contains a
comparison of the CNEL at the receptor locations. Scenario 1 shows noise increases as high as
1.1 dB at the receptor locations that are residential land use (location 1S). The increase in the
number of the air cargo flights to four ADD's, would correspond to a 0.1 dB CNEL increase in
noise compared to Scenario 1, as addressed in Draft EIR 582. An examination of Table 3.3 -17
shows that adding 0.1 dB CNEL to Scenario 1 noise levels (fifth column) results in the noise
increase of Scenario 1 to remain less than 1.5 dB, the threshold of significance for this analysis.
Therefore, these four total cargo ADDs do not change the results or conclusions of EIR 582.
5.3 Water Quality
5.3.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant water quality impacts.
5.3.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 found the Proposed Project would not violate
water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality standards. JWA operates under the
State's General Industrial Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit. As part
of the permit requirements the airport has developed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
The fueling and storm water pollution prevention facilities were upgraded in 2000. Flows from
the airport are directed to existing facilities, consisting of clarifiers and oil -water separators that
have sufficient capacity to treat any increased runoff resulting from the Project.
5.4 Biological Resources
5.4.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant biological impacts.
5.4.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the
potential effects on biological resources would not be significant for the identified reasons:
• The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on endangered,
threatened, or rare species. There are no species of special conoem on the airport
site. Final EIR 582 found that the potential impacts on sensitive species south of
JWA would be less than significant because the birds have habituated to the noise
due to the long history of aviation activity in the area. The single event noise levels
would be the same as what is currently experienced in the Upper Newport Bay.
The projected CNEL values at noise monitoring stations by the Upper Newport Bay
identify noise levels below 60 CNEL with the Proposed Project.
• The Proposed Project would not have any impacts on wetlands or locally designated
species.
• The Proposed Project would not impede any wildlife dispersal or migration corridors.
• The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan. The project will not involve removal of coastal sage scrub
habitat, or result in a net loss in Reserve System acreage or a net loss in
subregional habitat values, the project will be implemented in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the approved Central - Coastal Subregional' Natural
14
Communities Conservation Planning /Habitat Conservation (NCCP /HCP) Program
and associated state and federal permits.
5.5 Public Services and Utilities
5.5.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on public services
and utilities.
5.5.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the
potential effects on public services and utilities would not be significant for the identified
reasons:
• The Proposed Project would not result in a change in the Federal Aviation
Administration ( "FAA ") index that establishes fire fighting equipment needs. JWA
currently exceeds the FAA requirements for fire fighting equipment.
• The Orange County Sheriff Department ( "OCSD ") is under contract to JWA to
provide police protection. The OCSD is able to adjust staff levels to meet the need.
No new facilities would be required.
• There is sufficient capacity in the electrical capacity to serve the Proposed Project.
The lease agreement with Southern California Edison provides for ten megawatts of
power for JWA. Even with the increased service at JWA there would be sufficient
capacity at the dedicated substation to serve the airport.
• The Gas Company identified that the increased service with the Proposed Project
would be within the projected future demand for the area and no new improvements
would be required.
• The Sanitation District of Orange County provided a "will serve" letter to JWA at the
time the 1985 Master Plan was developed, stating it will provide sufficient water and
wastewater capacity for the 9.8 MAP at JWA contemplated by the Proposed
Project.
• The County has an approved Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan that
can provide in excess of 15 years of capacity for solid waste. The project would not
result in significant impact to solid waste facilities. Though not identified as a
significant impact, the County has adopted a mitigation measure to further reduce
potential impacts associated with solid waste generated by the Proposed Project.
The following mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated as part of the
Proposed Project:
PSU -1 During project design, JWA shall coordinate with the IWMD recycling coordinator to
ensure that the airport minimizes the amount of solid waste generated at the airport
in compliance with applicable waste reduction and recycling programs.
5.6 Aesthetics
5.6.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant aesthetic impact.
15
5.6.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 found that the Proposed Project would not
result in a change in the visual character of the airport or surrounding areas. It would not block
or alter any scenic views or vistas. There are no scenic resources, such as rock outcroppings
or historic buildings, which would be effected by the Proposed Project. There are no visually
sensitive areas with direct views of the airport.
5.7 Public Health and Safety
5.7.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant health and safety impact.
5.7.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the
potential effects on public health and safety would not be significant for the identified reasons:
• Historical information indicates that bird strikes are no particularly frequent at JWA
despite the substantial estuarine wetland in the Upper Newport Bay, within the
departing flight track. As a result, bird strikes were found not -to be a significant
public safety hazard.
• The Proposed Project would not result in any changes in existing runways, runway
safety areas, or protection zones. There would be no changes to the type of aircraft
used; therefore, no safety impacts associated with runways are anticipated.
• The existing emergency procedures for aircraft operation would apply to the
Proposed Project. These procedures comply with all federal, state, and local
standards.
5.8 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Use
5.8.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact associated with
hazardous materials.
5.8.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Final EIR 582 evaluated the following areas and found the
potential impacts associated with hazardous materials would not be significant for the identified
reasons:
• Hazardous materials at JWA are associated with fueling, maintenance, and repair of
aircraft and related vehicles. The County has developed operation and maintenance
procedures for the collection, recycling, and proper disposal of hazardous and
California regulated waste. Through implementation of these established
procedures the handling of these materials would be done in full compliance of
applicable codes. The potential impact would be reduced to less than significant.
• The potential for fuel leaks and spills are reduced through the use of the hydrant
fueling system. The Emergency Response, Spill Response, and SWPPP Plans
have all developed procedures for containment of fuel spills should they occur.
Continued implementation of these procedures reduces the potential impact
associated with hazardous materials to less than significant.
16
• The greatest quantity of hazardous materials stored at JWA is Jet -A fuel. The
Proposed Project would utilize the existing state -of- the -art fuel farms. The
construction of this facility exceeds safety requirements. No significant impacts
would occur due to fuel storage.
5.9 Risk of Upset
5.9.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant impact associated with
the risk of upset.
5.9.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project would result in a finite increase in
annual risk of upset potential associated with jet fuel transport accidents. It would not result in
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, involving the release of jet fuel into the
environment. The procedures currently in use, which have protected the environment from
significant impacts, would apply to the transport, storage, and handling of jet fuel with the
Proposed Project.
17
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts analysis of EIR 582 evaluated the potential impacts to the environment
that could be associated with implementation of the Proposed Project in concert with the
cumulative projects and projected growth for the region. A 2006 horizon year was used for the
evaluation. The Orange County Preferred- 2000 (OCP -2000) projections are used for
projecting regional growth that would occur within the study area.
6.1 Significant Cumulative Effects That Cannot Be Mitigated To Below A Level Of
Significance
6.1.1 Air Quality
6.1.1.1 Significant Effects. The project level air quality analysis is the same as the
cumulative analysis because it utilizes 2006 project traffic levels, which are based on the
projected regional growth projections. The Proposed Project would result in additional air
pollutant emissions. The cumulative analysis identified emissions of CO, NO., and PM10 would
exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The violations of NO. and PM10 standards
would be inconsistent with the adopted AQMP. Mitigation measures have been proposed to
reduce the significant air quality impacts. Nevertheless, even with implementation of these
mitigation measures, the significant cumulative operational air quality impacts for CO, NO., and
PM10 cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance with Proposed Project.
6.1.1.2.1 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3.
6.1.1.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the adoption, by the County, of the
mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Project, as outlined in
Section 3.1.3 of these Findings. However, the impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a
level of significance. The City has identified no feasible toxic air contaminant mitigation
measures within its jurisdiction. The City has identified no feasible air quality mitigation
measures within its jurisdiction. The Council has determined the remaining significant effects to
be acceptable because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and
other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
6.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
6.1.2.1 Significant Effect. The Proposed Project will contribute to toxic air contaminants
resulting in an increased risk for lifetime cancer risk and acute health risks.
6.1.2.2 Findings. The Board adopts CEQA Findings 1 and 3.
6.1.2.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Project have
been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the implementation of the mitigation
measures that have been adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, as outlined in
Section 3.2.3 of these Findings. However, those impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to below
a level of significance. The remaining significant effects are acceptable because of the
specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
18
6.1.3 Transportation
6.1.3.1 Significant Effect. As identified in EIR sections 5.2.2 and 3.2.7, the Proposed Project
would result in significant cumulative transportation impacts at three freeway (Interstate /State
Route) ramp locations.
With implementation of mitigation measure T -2, the identified impacts to freeway ramps would
be reduced to a level below significant. However, mitigation measure T -2 is within the
jurisdiction, in whole or in part, of the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ").
Caltrans has notified the County that certain freeway improvement programs administered by
Caltrans are currently not funded and, therefore, these improvement programs should not be
relied upon as mitigation for congestion impacts due to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, in
the event the proposed T -2 ramp improvements are not implemented prior to initiation of the
flight and MAP levels identified for the Proposed Project, the identified freeway ramp impacts
would remain significant and unmitigated.
The two additional daily cargo flights which would occur under the Proposed Project are
expected to generate approximately 186 daily trips, which represents an increase of
approximately .3 percent in the Proposed Project's total trip generation. This limited increased
in daily vehicle trips attributable to two additional daily cargo flights would not affect the results
of the traffic analysis presented in the EIR. Additionally, the initiation of increased MAP levels
as of January 1, 2003, as compared to a later date, does not alter the results of the traffic
analysis; the EIR traffic analysis assumes ultimate MAP levels at the outset of the Proposed
Project.
6.1.3.2 Findings. The Council adopts CEQA Findings 2 and 3.
6.1.3.3 Facts in Support of Findings. The identified significant effects of the Proposed
Project have been reduced or avoided to the extent feasible through the adoption, by the
County, of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Project, as
outlined in Section 3.3.3 of these Findings. However, those impacts cannot be feasibly
mitigated to below a level of significance. The City has identified no feasible transportation
mitigation measures within its jurisdiction. The remaining significant effects are acceptable
because of the specified overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
6.2 Cumulative Effects Determined To Be Mitigated To Below A Level Of Significance
6.2.1 Transportation
6.2.1.1 Significant Effect. The traffic analysis evaluated the cumulative impacts associated
with regional growth. A significant impact was identified at the Campus Drive /Bristol Street
North intersection. This impact would be below the level of significance with the implementation
of the mitigation measure specified below.
6.2.1.2 Finding. The Council adopts CEQA Finding 2.
6.2.1.3 Facts in Support of Finding. The significant circulation impact at the Campus
Drive /Bristol Street North intersection can be mitigated to below a level of significance with the
0
implementation of mitigation measure T -1, which the County has adopted and incorporated as
part of the project, and is provided in Section 4.1.3 of these Findings.
6.3 Cumulative Effects Determined Not To Be Significant
This section of the findings summarizes the potential effects found not to be significant upon
implementation of the Proposed Project. The summary of the environmental effects found not
to be significant is based on the environmental analysis provided in the Final EIR, Section 5.0
(Cumulative Impacts) and Section 6.2 (Growth Inducing). The project is anticipated to result in
the following impacts that are not significant:
6.3.1 Land Use
6.3.1.1 Finding. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant
cumulative land use impacts.
6.3.1.2 Facts in Support of Finding. A review of the cumulative projects does not identify any
projects that would contribute to land use impacts resulting in significant cumulative land use
impacts. Potential land use impacts associated with the Proposed Project are very project
specific (i.e., specific to airport operations). None of the cumulative projects are aviation
related. The Proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts.
6.3.2 Noise
6.3.2.1 Finding. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant
cumulative noise impacts.
6.3.2.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The cumulative projects identified in the study area would
not result in substantial increase in the noise levels surrounding the airport. The noise
generated by the cumulative projects would be predominately traffic noise and would not affect
the noise contours associated with the Proposed Project.
6.3.3 Water Quality
6.3.3.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative water quality
impacts.
6.3.3.2 Facts in Support of Finding. JWA has developed structural improvements and
procedural guidelines to ensure complete containment of potential spills. The runoff from the
cumulative projects in the project study area would also flow to the Upper Newport Bay, an
impaired water body. Each of the cumulative projects that discharge into the Upper Newport
Bay have been required to implement measures to reduce the pollutant load of runoff from the
project to comply with the Clean Water Act. No significant cumulative water quality impacts
would be anticipated.
6.3.4 Biological Resources
6.3.4.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative biological
impacts.
all
6.3.4.2 Facts in Support of Finding. Biotic resources are not an issue of concern for the
majority of the cumulative projects because of the developed nature of the project sites. The
biotic value of the Home Ranch Project is limited because of its degraded nature; however,
mitigation measures have been incorporated to address potential impacts. Since the Proposed
Project would not have significant impacts and the minimal biotic impacts of the cumulative
projects, no significant biotic cumulative would occur.
6.3.5 Public Services and Utilities
6.3.5.1 Facts. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts on
public services and utilities.
6.3.5.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project would not have any significant
impacts on public services and utilities. No physical improvements to facilities would be
required to serve the Proposed Project. The utility master plans prepared by the various
service providers consider the anticipated regional growth; therefore, there is sufficient capacity
in the various systems to serve the anticipated growth assumed by the cumulative projects. No
significant cumulative impacts on public services and utilities are anticipated.
6.3.6 Aesthetics
6.3.6.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative aesthetic
impact.
6.3.6.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The project would not have visual impacts at the airport
or on the surrounding area. For a project to have a cumulative visual effect, the Proposed
Project elements and those of the cumulative project would need to be seen in the same or
adjacent viewshed. None of the cumulative projects would be in the same viewshed as the
Proposed Project. None of the other projects would influence the visual character of the project
area. Given the urban nature of the study area, a significant cumulative impact on the visual
character of the study area would not occur
6.3.7 Public Health and Safety
6.3.7.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative health and
safety impact.
6.3.7.2 Facts in Support of Finding. No public safety issues were identified for the Proposed
Project. The Project would not change the airfield facilities, the operating procedures, or type of
aircraft used at JWA. None of the cumulative projects would have the potential for having
similar type safety issues that would contribute to cumulative impacts. Compliance with
applicable State and federal regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant.
6.3.8 Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials Use
6.3.8.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative health and
safety impacts.
21
6.3.8.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant
impact associated with hazardous wastes or materials. JWA has implemented programs to
protect against a hazard associated with the use of materials classified as hazardous.
Hazardous materials were not identified as an issue for the other cumulative projects in the
study area. No significant cumulative impact would result.
6.3.9 Risk of Upset
6.3.9.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts
associated with the risk of upset.
6.3.9.2 Facts in Support of Findings. The cumulative projects are located some distance away
from the JWA site, are not industrial projects that would typically transport, handle or store large
amounts of hazardous, flammable or explosive materials, the potential for cumulative risk of
upset impacts, either during construction or operation. The potential cumulative impacts on
nearby residents, businesses and /or persons using nearby roadways resulting from the risks
associated with the transport, storage, or use of aviation is considered remote:.
6.3.10 Growth Inducing
6.3.10.1 Finding. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative growth
inducing impacts.
6.3.10.2 Facts in Support of Finding. The Proposed Project is not considered to be growth
inducing since the additional air transportation capacity would not exceed existing or future
demand for air transportation. The cumulative projects are not responding to the potential
increase in capacity at JWA, but rather are consistent with the projected regional growth. The
Proposed Project and cumulative projects are responding to the planned growth. Combined,
these projects would not result in any significant pressure to redevelop the area around JWA at
a higher intensity, which is currently a major employment area for Orange County.
7.0 FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the Proposed Project will result in some unavoidable significant environmental effects,
as outlined above, the Council must consider the feasibility of environmentally superior
alternatives to the project. The Council must evaluate whether such alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. These findings contrast
and compare the environmental impacts of the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR.
The Board has determined that the project alternatives are not feasible; and therefore, is
required by CEQA, before approving the project it adopted findings including a Statement of
Overriding Considerations with regard to the project setting forth the factors that warrant
approval of the project despite the existence of adverse environmental impacts.
The Council has also reviewed the EIR carefully and independently, and evaluated the
feasibility of alternatives. The EIR must focus its analysis of alternatives on alternatives that
"could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project ". However, the CEQA
Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capable of avoiding or lessening"
06
environmental effects even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment
of the project objectives or would be more costly." (Guidelines §15126.6(b).)
CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings
requirement: "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." PUB. RES. CODE §21081 provides, in part:
"...[Njo public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved
or carried out unless both the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one
or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect:
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly -
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report."
The concept of "feasibility," therefore, as it applies to findings, involves a balancing of various
economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. See, PUB. RES. CODE.
§21061.1; GUIDELINES §15364; SB 919 (amending PUB. RES. CODE §21081 (c).); see also,
City of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,564 -566; City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 415 -417.
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives, where appropriate, to show that the
selection of the project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial
environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the Council
has examined both the environmental impacts and the project objectives and weighed the
ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The Council finds, after due
consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives as set forth in the EIR and below, that in
light of its stated objectives, the Proposed Project best meets the objectives with the least
environmental impact. The Council finds that the Proposed Project provides the best possible
protection for the community and the environment while balancing the County's needs to
respond to demand for service.
7.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes the continuation of the provisions in Final EIS /EIR 508 and
the implementation of the full terms of the Settlement Agreement. This alternative would
provide for 73 regulated ADD and two air cargo ADD; however, there would not be the legal
restrictions of a court adopted settlement agreement in place. This alternative also assumes
that the number of passengers served at JWA would increase from 7.8 MAP served in the year
2000 to 8.4 MAP as provided for in the Settlement Agreement by January 1, 2006. The curfew
and the General Aviation Noise Ordinance ( "GANO ") would not change.
The No Project Alternative would incrementally reduce the impacts associated with traffic and
air quality compared to the Proposed Project; however, the impacts would not be reduced to a
23
level below significance. The operational air quality emissions would still exceed the thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. While the Proposed Project was found to be inconsistent with the
AQMP because of the increased emissions levels, the No Project Alternative should be
considered to be consistent with the AQMP because a level of operation serving 8.4 MAP at
JWA was found to conform with the 1997 AQMP in the 2001 RTP, and is included in the
adopted 2001 RTP. For toxic air contaminants, the lifetime cancer risks would exceed the
significance threshold of 10 in one million at all MEI receptors for the No Project Alternative.
Therefore, similar to the Proposed Project, calculated excess lifetime cancer risks under worst -
plausible exposure scenarios would result in significant impacts. However, for the No Project
alternative the impacts would fall below the level of significance for chronic non- cancer health
hazards.
This alternative would reduce the impacts compared to the Proposed Project; however, it does
not reduce them to a level of insignificance. Further, it does not effectively meet the project
objectives, and therefore, would not be feasible, as it applies to these Findings. It would not be
responsive to the need to revise regulatory operational restrictions at JWA in light of current
circumstances, and the current needs of the affected communities and the industry interests
represented at JWA (objective 5). The No Project Alternative would also not meet Project
Objective 4, which is to provide a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport
users and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a
defined future period of time. With the No Project Alternative there would not be any
Settlement Agreement in place that would define the level of permitted aviation activity.
Because, for the City, the legal protection of an ongoing Agreement is a critical goal, the No
Project Alternative does not effectively meet the project objectives and is therefore, for
purposes of these Findings, not feasible.
7.2 Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would permit the number of regulated flights at JWA to increase from the current 73
ADD to 85 ADD; however, the additional flights would be permitted to initiate on April 1, 2002.
Scenario 2 would permit a passenger service level of 10.8 MAP. Under this scenario, all 85
regulated flights would be Class A flights. Approximately, 74 Class E flights would be needed to
achieve the 10.8 MAP level. Similar to the Proposed Project, a total of four air cargo flights
would be allowed commencing January 1, 2006.
The Settlement Agreement would be extended only five years beyond its current term, to
December 31, 2010.
This alternative would be environmentally worse than the Proposed Project. The Proposed
Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, traffic, and toxic
air contaminants. This scenario would have incrementally greater impacts in each of these
areas due to the larger number of passengers being served at JWA. With Scenario 2 there
would also be additional significant impacts to several segments of the freeway mainline, which
would not occur with the Proposed Project. Additionally, Scenario 2 would have significant
unavoidable impacts related to noise and land use, which would not be experienced with the
Proposed Project.
This scenario would also not meet the project objectives as effectively as the Proposed Project.
It would not provide the same level of protection as the Proposed Project to environmental
24
interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA (objective 2). Scenario 2
would result in unavoidable adverse significant impacts associated with noise and land use that
are not associated with the Proposed Project. This alternative would also not be as effective in
meeting the provisions of Project Objective 4, as the Proposed Project. This Project Objective
calls for providing a reasonable level of certainty to the local community, airport users and the
air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity at JWA for a defined future
period of time. Scenario 2 does provide certainty on the level of aviation activity through the
end of 2010; however, the Proposed Project is able to define the level of activity through the
end of 2015. The Proposed Project has fewer significant environmental impacts and better
meets the project objectives.
The City finds this alternative infeasible for these reasons.
7.3 Scenario 3
Scenario 3 provided for more growth at JWA than the Proposed Project. This scenario would
have permitted the number of regulated flights at JWA to increase from 73 ADD to 85 ADD as
of April 1, 2002 and increase to 100 ADD as of January 1, 2006. There would be no restrictions
on the MAP levels, though based on the fleet mix approximately 12.3 MAP would be served
with this scenario. All 100 regulated flights would be Class A flights. A total of four air cargo
flights would be allowed; as of January 1, 2006. The Settlement Agreement would be extended
ten years beyond its current term, until December 31, 2015.
This alternative would have worse environmental impacts than the Proposed Project. The
Proposed Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality, traffic,
and toxic air contaminants. Scenario 3 would have greater impacts than the Proposed Project
in each of these areas due to the increased number of regulated flights and the larger number
of passengers being served at JWA. With Scenario 3 there would also be significant impacts to
an additional freeway ramp and several segments of the freeway mainline, which would not
occur with the Proposed Project. This scenario would also have significant unavoidable
impacts related to noise and land use, which would not be experienced with the Proposed
Project.
This scenario would not meet the project objectives associated with protecting the
environmental interests and concerns of persons residing in the vicinity of JWA, nor would it
provide a good balance between providing air service and protecting against local
environmental consequences. This scenario would provide increased aircraft operations at
JWA at the expense of the quality of life that the City wishes to protect. This is from the City's
perspective, not a feasible alternative.
7.4 Alternative D
Alternative D would have maximized the use of the airport and more fully met Orange County's
air travel demand. There would be no restrictions on the number or type of flights, the MAP
served at JWA, or on the size of the facilities at the airport. The airport curfew and the
provisions of the GANO would remain. The analysis assumed 181 ADD of Class A aircraft and
would accommodate 13.9 MAP.
25
This alternative would have substantially greater environmental impacts than the Proposed
Project related to noise, air quality, transportation, and land use. It would not effectively meet
the project objectives. It would not protect environmental interests or the concerns of persons
residing in the vicinity of JWA regarding "quality of life" issues (Project Objective 2). This
Alternative would not permit the County to maintain a reasonable balance between air service
and local environmental consequences of that service in a manner which controls and
minimizes the County's risk of noise damage claims which otherwise might be made against the
County. It is not feasible both because it fails to meet these project objectives and because of
its significant adverse environmental impacts.
7.5 Alternative E
Alternative E would extend the Settlement Agreement until December 31, 2015. As of January
1, 2005, up to 79 ADD of regulated flights would be allowed to serve up to 8.8 MAP. All of the
noise - regulated flights would be Class A. The curfew and GANO would not change with this
alternative.
As set forth in Final EIR 582, Alternative E is environmentally superior to the Proposed Project
because it would have incrementally less impacts associated with traffic, air quality, and air
toxics. However, this alternative would not reduce these adverse impacts below the level of
significance. Alternative E would not meet the project objectives as effectively as the Proposed
Project. Alternative E would provide some additional capacity and modify some existing
restrictions on aircraft operations at JWA (Project Objective 1); however, the minor incremental
increase in the number of passengers served by Alternative E would not provide sufficient
increased air transportation opportunities to be effective. It would not be responsive to the
needs of Orange County's air travel needs. Alternative E only partially meets the project
objectives and is not an adequate basis for a long -term Agreement between the City, the
County and the other parties. It is therefore, for purposes of these Findings not a feasible
option.
8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT NOT PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION
8.1 Air Quality Mitigation Measures
The project would result in some incremental increases in air quality impacts in CO and NOx
that are considered significant. While mitigation has been adopted, it cannot be determined at
this time whether the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the
EIR concludes that the identified impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under the
project.
In addition, some of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR relate to possible future
construction activities, which might ultimately be proposed for study, but which are not part of
the approved project. These mitigation measures would more appropriately be considered and
evaluated for adoption by the County if and when specific facility improvements are proposed
for implementation and the necessary environmental analysis for any such improvements is
prepared (Mitigation measures AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ-4 through AQ -7, AQ -10, AQ -12, AQ -14, AQ -15,
AQ -17, and AQ -18). Therefore, although these air quality mitigation measures were evaluated,
they are not included in the approved project. The Board has found that implementation of the
following measures are not feasible at this time, the Council finds that these measures are
9�
outside of the City's jurisdiction, but can and should be adopted when appropriate by the
County.
AQ -1 Dust Suppression. During construction of the Proposed Project, the County of Orange
and its contractors will be required to comply with regional rules, which would assist in
reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation
of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site.
SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available
control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook provides dust suppression techniques in addition to those in Rule
403. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust
generation (and thus the PM,, component) from grading by 50 percent. Applicable air
measures from the County of Orange Standard Conditions of Approval shall be
implemented.
During the process of developing construction -level plans and completing environmental
review for construction, additional construction mitigation will be provided, as necessary.
Construction measures may include requiring diesel construction equipment to use ultra
low sulfur fuel and CARB - certified engines, and designating monitors to supervise the
dust control program. Formulation of a detailed construction level mitigation plan is not
possible until the County develops further information on construction plans.
The significant impacts associated with operational emissions, air concentrations, and
plans and policies identified for the Proposed Project would be mitigated by the following
feasible mitigation measures:
AQ -2 The County of Orange shall include electrical power outlets for landside passenger
shuttles, including incorporation of electrical power outlets in the terminal and parking lot
designed to accommodate electric shuttle vehicles.
AQ-4 Prior to final design, the County shall ensure that final design of the project will minimize
taxi -in and taxi -out times and reduce aircraft queuing times. These features incorporate
airfield and terminal design and location of the terminal (selected to facilitate ready
access to the airfield).
AQ -5 The County of Orange shall include electrical power and preconditioned air in the design
and construction of any new terminal gates, to reduce emissions from operating aircraft
engines at the gates. These facilities allow airlines to avoid emissions associated with
running the aircraft's auxiliary power unit while it is parked at the gate. The County of
Orange shall advise the tenant airlines in writing that the County supports the use of
electrical power and preconditioned air at the JWA terminal gates aetways) in order to
reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates. This measure is partly
within the responsibility and jurisdiction.of the airlines.
AQ -6 The County of Orange shall include electrical power outlets at JWA for electric ramp
vehicles, and for battery charging for ground support equipment for the design and
construction of new terminal gates. The facilities will allow the airlines to convert their
GSE to clean fuels.
27
AQ -7 The County of Orange shall incorporate hydrant fueling systems for the new passenger
boarding gates for commercial jet aircraft operations. In addition, all new fuel handling
and storage facilities will comply with the latest emission reduction regulations.
AQ -10 The County of Orange shall use lighting controls and energy efficient lighting in the
design of airport facilities.
AQ -12 The County of Orange shall implement an on -site circulation plan in parking lots to
reduce vehicle queuing.
AQ -14 For any new construction, the County of Orange shall use energy efficient and
automated controls for air conditioners.
AQ -15 For any new construction, the County of Orange shall implement an on -site circulation
plan in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing at JWA.
AQ -17 The County shall continue to design the parking facilities to encourage pay -on -foot
(i.e., before getting into car) to minimize idle time.
AQ -18 The County shall provide charging stations and preferential parking locations for electric
vehicles in all (including employee) lots.
8.2 Public Services and Utilities
Draft EIR 582 contained a mitigation measure pertaining to recycling of concrete and asphalt
associated with project demolition to minimize impacts on landfills. While the EIR identified that
physical improvements could be a foreseeable outgrowth of the Proposed Project, it does not
provide for the construction or demolition of any facilities at JWA. Therefore, the County has
determined mitigation measure PSU -2 is more appropriately adopted at the time that
environmental documentation on a construction project is prepared. The following mitigation
measure contained in Draft EIR 582 was not adopted by the County:
PSU -2 At the time of construction of improvements, the contractor specifications shall require
the contractor to take concrete and asphalt from project demolition to an off site
recycling location to minimize impacts to existing landfills. The contractor shall provide
the Airport Project Engineer with verification that the materials have been recycled.
The City finds that this Mitigation Measure is within the responsibility of the County, and can
and should be adopted by the County when appropriate.
9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
9.1 Background
CEQA Guidelines § 1509(h) requires responsible agency to make the findings required by
section 15093, regarding overriding considerations that justify the approval of a project for
which significant environmental effects have been identified. Guidelines § 15093 provides as
follows:
28
"(a) CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Proposed Project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other benefits of a Proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
"acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the
occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to supports its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in
the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the
statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for,
and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to § 15091."
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines, the Council hereby finds that
the mitigation measures discussed in these findings and adopted by the County, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, when implemented, will avoid or substantially lessen
the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the
project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. The City
has not identified any additional feasible mitigation measures or alternative within its powers
that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the
environment. In summary, even with implementation of the mitigation measures described in
Final EIR 582 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the following effects are
considered to be significant and unmitigable at this time:
Air Quality
The project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts associated with
operations provided for with the Proposed Project at JWA. Emissions would exceed the
thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Should
at a later date physical improvements to the facilities at JWA be proposed for implementation,
there is the potential for construction related emissions in excess of adopted standards.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with
construction activities.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Proposed Project would result in significant adverse and unavoidable toxic air contaminant
impacts for lifetime cancer risk and acute health risks.
Traffic
29
Four freeway ramps and the Campus Drive /Airport Way North intersection would be
significantly impacted with the Project when compared to existing conditions. These impacts
would be reduced to below a level of significance based on implementation of identified
mitigation measures; however, currently there are no funding sources identified for the
improvements. The mitigation measures recommended for the project include measures that
are under the jurisdiction and control of agencies other than the County and the City. If these
agencies do not implement or approve these measures, the project impacts may be significant.
If the measures are not implemented prior to full implementation of the flight and MAP levels
identified for the Proposed Project, the impacts to the freeway ramps and the identified
intersection would remain significant impacts.
In approving this project, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its
unavoidable adverse effects. In this regard, the Council finds that feasible mitigation measures
have been or will be implemented with this project, and any significant remaining unavoidable
effects are acceptable due to specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, all of which are based on the facts set forth in these findings, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Final EIR 582, all the related technical reports and appendices,
and the record of this project.
30
9.2 Overriding Considerations
The Council has identified the following overriding considerations in making the determination to
adopt the Proposed Project despite the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
analyzed in the Final EIR for the project, and identified in Section 3, above. The Council finds
that these considerations, individually and cumulatively, are relevant and valid reasons that
make the selected Project acceptable despite the fact that significant remaining unavoidable
adverse effects of the Project have been identified. The Council has concluded that the
adopted project is of sufficient benefit to the people of the City of Newport Beach and also of
Orange County, for economic, fiscal, social, technological, legal and other reasons to be
acceptable and to warrant its adoption.
The benefits of the project, which are described below, outweigh the significant unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts.
After analyzing the impacts of a range of scenarios and alternatives, the City has
determined that the Proposed Project represents the optimal balancing of the City's
goals of protecting the important environmental interests and concerns of persons
residing in the vicinity and the County's need to provide increased air transportation
opportunities to the air traveling public in response to an increased demand.
2. The Proposed Project protects the environmental interests and concerns of persons
residing in the vicinity of JWA, including their concerns regarding noise and other
"quality of life" issues relating to the operation of JWA to a greater extent than the other
scenarios evaluated in the EIR. The Project provides assurances through December
31, 2015 that no new noise sensitive uses will be exposed to aviation noise levels in
excess of adopted standards.
3. Adoption of the Proposed Project establishes a reasonable level of commercial
passenger service at JWA (9.8 MAP) and provides certainty to the local community,
airport users, and the air traveling public regarding the level of permitted aviation activity
at JWA through December 31, 2015. Having this certainty better allows the airlines to
schedule flights and establish routes that best meet the needs of Orange County
residents, and also provides long -term protections to Newport Beach and its residents.
4. The Proposed Project will preserve and continue to implement important restrictions on
the use of JWA that are "grandfathered" under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990. It reflects historical policy decisions of the Orange County Board of Supervisors
regarding the appropriate point of balance between the competing interests of the air
transportation and aviation community and local residents living in the vicinity of the
airport. These include the existing nighttime operations restrictions and maximum
permitted single -event noise levels.
5. The Proposed Project best balances the provision of increased air service with the
County's desire to minimize its risk of noise damage claims.
6. The adoption of the Proposed Project allows JWA to help meet a greater portion of the
air travel demand generated in Orange County which will benefit the residents of
31
Orange County, including City residents, by providing more convenient air travel without
having to travel to other regional airports.
By increasing the amount of air cargo service being provided at JWA, the Project will
assist businesses in Orange County by providing improved air cargo service in Orange
County.
32
June 24, 2002
CITY OF COSTA MESA 6 /2s /oa
CALIFORNIA 9282&1200 P.O. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
The Honorable Jim Silva
Second District Supervisor
County of Orange
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
SUBJECT: Board Consideration
Agreement Extension
Dear Supervisor Silva:
C3 -
,v
Of The John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement
On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, the Board Of Supervisors will be asked to approve the
extension of the Settlement Agreement restricting the operation of John Wayne Airport
(JWA). The City of Costa Mesa requests your support of the proposed extension as
negotiated by the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach.
In a perfect world, JWA would not operate in such close proximity to homes,
businesses, churches and schools. The current operation of the airport clearly has an
adverse impact on its surrounding communities - a simple fact not in dispute. Yet
despite those adverse impacts, the existing Settlement Agreement negotiated in 1985
has allowed JWA to operate in a manner that has limited those adverse impacts, albeit
to a greater or lesser degree depending on the nature of the land use impacted and
proximity to the airport. While appreciative of the fact that projected air transportation
demand means that Southern California must develop long -term solutions to meet this
demand if it is to remain competitive in our world economy, it does not change the fact
that JWA cannot expand - either physically or in terms of capacity - without further
adverse impacts on Orange County residents. In short, JWA is not the answer to
meeting long- range, regional air transportation demand.
The City of Costa Mesa's support for extension of the Settlement Agreement pursuant
to the limitations contained in Scenario 1 as previously directed by the Board of
Supervisors is not borne of a desire to increase adverse impacts on our community.
Along with the other Corridor Cities, we recognize that a long -term extension of the
Settlement Agreement - even with some increase in airport capacity and its consequent
impact - is far preferable to losing the current restrictions due to expire in 2005. We
sincerely expect that the Board - and perhaps more importantly the Federal Aviation
77 FAIR DRIVE • (714) 754.5285 FAX (714) 754-5330 . TOO (714!1754-5244
Authority and the airline industry - clearly understands the sacrifice in quality of life this
action imposes on our community and that you take advantage of every opportunity to
identify and develop alternative airport facilities well before the expiration of the
proposed Settlement Agreement extension.
In closing, we want to make note of our appreciation for the tireless efforts of the staff of
John Wayne Airport and of the City of Newport Beach in bringing about the proposed
agreement. Without their dedication in negotiating an agreement which both extends
the majority of the current restrictions as well as some level of flexibility in meeting a
portion of the future air transportation demand, our residents would be impacted to
catastrophic levels for years to come. Likewise, we want to acknowledge the leadership
of the Board of Supervisors along with that of the elected officials of the Corridor Cities
who have so diligently supported this effort.
-- — -- Sincerely, —
Linda W. Dixon
Mayor
LW D /df
c: City Council
Mayors, Corridor Cities
City Managers & City Attorneys, Corridor Cities
Director, John Wayne Airport
Clerk of the Board
ACI Traffic Data: World airports ranking by total movements - 2000 (Final)
http://w .airports.org/traffic/td-movements-doc2000.htrnl
A�
ACI Traffic Data: World airports ranking by total movements - 2000 (Final)
Airports participating in the ACI annual traffic statistics collection.
Total Movements: landing + take off of an aircraft.
Last update: 1, November 2001
783433
63TT79
555'375
523',1,46
5ZVgDD
VV073
51 V, 57
420,!,1222
420506
AV412
3V%62
384't54
1 of 2 6/24/02 834 PM
ATLANTAIRIL)
2
GkidAbb-0 RD)
3
DALLAWTWORTH (DFW)
4
Los�ANGE L
.... .. . g! (LAX)
.6
PHOJFNlX-(PHX)
.7
MINN OWPALIL (MSP)
LA&.Vr:qA&(LAs)
DENVER (DEN);
10
. .............
PARIS .S%Q G)
ik--
A w
MIAMI !A
12.
13
HOWOKOK "
H ,
14
9TLOUIS(STIL)
16
'16
CINCINNATI (HEBRON) (CVG)
17
L0NQCtN-,(LH
18
FRANW—URPMAIN (FRA)
19
20
............
.. .......... ...........
783433
63TT79
555'375
523',1,46
5ZVgDD
VV073
51 V, 57
420,!,1222
420506
AV412
3V%62
384't54
1 of 2 6/24/02 834 PM