INTRODUCTION PROJECT HISTORY AND SETTING … · Project History and Setting 2-2 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT...

JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2-1 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

INTRODUCTION, PROJECT HISTORY, AND SETTING

PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (California Public Resources Code [“PRC”], Section 21002.1) states that the purpose of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant impacts can be mitigated or avoided. A detailed description of the proposed John Wayne Airport (“JWA” or “the Airport”) General Aviation Improvement Program (“GAIP,” or “Project”) is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Program EIR. The GAIP requires approval of certain discretionary actions by the County of Orange (“County”). For purposes of complying with CEQA, the County is the Lead Agency for the GAIP. This Program EIR is intended to provide the environmental information necessary for the County to make a final decision on the requested entitlements for the GAIP. Additionally, this EIR is also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other agencies. In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision makers and the general public of (1) the significant environmental effects of the GAIP; (2) possible ways to minimize the significant effects; and (3) reasonable alternatives to the GAIP. Decision makers are required to consider the information in the EIR in determining whether to approve, deny, or modify the GAIP. TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

STANDARDS OF ADEQUACY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (PRC, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines the standards of adequacy for an EIR as follows: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. This Draft EIR is intended to serve as a Program EIR under CEQA. Section 15165 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, “where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken

Project History and Setting

2-2 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL AVIATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.” Relevant portions of Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines describe a program EIR as follows: (a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which 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. (b) Advantages. Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, (3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and (5) Allow reduction in paperwork. (c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.



(5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

2.3.1 REVIEW OF AN EIR The County, as the Lead Agency (and project proponent), which has the principal authority for approving the GAIP, along with other public agencies with direct interest in the GAIP (e.g., responsible and trustee agencies), may use this Program EIR in their decision-making or permitting processes and will consider the information in this Program EIR in combination with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. In addition, this Program EIR provides the analysis in support of the Mitigation Program that will be implemented as part of the GAIP, if approved. In accordance with CEQA, public agencies are required to make appropriate findings for each potentially significant environmental impact identified in the EIR if they decide to approve a project. If the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives, the Lead Agency (and responsible agencies using this CEQA document for their respective permits or approvals) must decide whether the benefits of the proposed project outweigh any identified significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below a threshold of significance. If the agency decides that the project benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts, then the agency (Lead Agency or responsible agency) is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states the reasons that support its actions. The Lead Agency’s actions involved in implementation of the GAIP are described in Section 3.0, Project Description. Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the GAIP, or components thereof, including responsible and trustee agencies, are also described in the Project Description. 2.3.2 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PROGRAM EIR In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County prepared an Initial Study (“IS”) for the GAIP and determined that the GAIP may have a significant effect on the environment; as such, an EIR is required for the GAIP. In compliance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County oversaw preparation of the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of the Draft Program EIR for the GAIP, which was distributed to 75 individuals or agencies on March 30, 2017, to the State Clearinghouse and other public agencies for the required 30-day review and comment period. In addition, email notices regarding the availability of the NOP on the JWA website were sent to all the lessees at the Airport; and the NOP was posted on the JWA website, as well as the County of Orange Public Works website. The NOP and distribution list are provided in Appendix A.



A Scoping Meeting was held on April 12, 2017, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at the JWA Administrative Office in the Airport Commission Meeting Room to facilitate agency and public review and comment on the GAIP. A hand-out, which provided an overview of the GAIP to be evaluated in the Program EIR and a list of frequently asked questions, was distributed at the scoping meeting. Comment cards were available for attendees to submit at the meeting or mail to JWA staff. Approximately 30 people attended the scoping meeting (28 people signed the sign-in sheet). A total of 13 comment letters were received during the 30-day NOP review period. Table 2-1 provides a summary matrix of the issues raised in the NOP comment letters. The comments received on the NOP by the County, the handout made available at the Scoping Meeting, and sign-in sheet are included in Appendix A of this Program EIR. TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY MATRIX OF NOTICE OF PREPARATION COMMENTS

Agency/Individual (Date)

Comment Category

Proj

ect D

efin

itio

n/Pr

oces

s

Proj

ect A

lter

nati

ves

Aest

heti

cs

Air

Qua

lity/

Hea

lth R

isk

Cultu

ral/

Scie

ntifi

c Re

sour

ces

Gree

nhou

se G

as E

mis

sion

s

Haz

ards

/Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

Hyd

rolo

gy/W

ater

Qua

lity

Land

Use

/Pla

nnin

g

Noi

se

Tran

spor

tati

on/T

raffi

c

Trib

al C

ultu

ral R

esou

rces

Uti

litie

s/Se

rvic

e Sy

stem

s

State Agencies Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (March 30, 2017)a Native American Heritage Commission (April 5, 2017) X X Regional Agencies Orange County Sanitation District (April 7, 2017) X Orange County Transportation Authority (May 1, 2017) X South Coast Air Quality Management District (April 20, 2017) X X Local Agencies City of Costa Mesa (April 12, 2017) X X X City of Costa Mesa (April 28, 2017) X X X



TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY MATRIX OF NOTICE OF PREPARATION COMMENTS

Agency/Individual (Date)

Comment Category

Proj

ect D

efin

itio

n/Pr

oces

s

Proj

ect A

lter

nati

ves

Aest

heti

cs

Air

Qua

lity/

Hea

lth R

isk

Cultu

ral/

Scie

ntifi

c Re

sour

ces

Gree

nhou

se G

as E

mis

sion

s

Haz

ards

/Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

Hyd

rolo

gy/W

ater

Qua

lity

Land

Use

/Pla

nnin

g

Noi

se

Tran

spor

tati

on/T

raffi

c

Trib

al C

ultu

ral R

esou

rces

Uti

litie

s/Se

rvic

e Sy

stem

s

City of Irvine (April 20, 2017) X X City of Newport Beach (April 25, 2017) X X X X City of Orange (April 26, 2017) X Organizations Caribou Industries, Inc. (April 17, 2017) X Individualsb Scott Cutshall (April 12, 2017) X X X X Jim Mosher (May 1, 2017) X a The letter from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit verified receipt of the NOP and provided a listing of the agencies that the document was forwarded to. b Listed in the order of the date received. The scope of the EIR is based on the findings of the IS and input received from the agencies and the public as part of the scoping process. The EIR addresses all potential significant effects identified in the Environmental Checklist, as well as several topical areas that the County decided to include in the EIR, although the IS determined the GAIP would have no significant impacts.



Based on the NOP and related Environmental Checklist, as well as the comments received by the County on those documents, this EIR analyzes the following environmental topics: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Cultural and Scientific Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use and Planning

• Noise • Transportation/Traffic • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Water Quality The following issues were assessed as “No Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact” in the IS/NOP; therefore, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, these issues were identified in the NOP as topical areas that would not receive further evaluation in the EIR1:

• Aesthetics: JWA is located in an urbanized area of the County with no scenic resources on or adjacent to the Airport. All GAIP modifications would be located within the Airport boundaries. Therefore, no impacts to a scenic vista or scenic highway would occur (Environmental Checklist question 1[a]). There are no designated or eligible State or local scenic highways within the vicinity of the Airport. There are also no historic buildings adjacent to the Airport site (Environmental Checklist question 1[b]). • Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The GAIP would not result in any impacts to farmlands listed as “Prime,” “Unique,” or of “Statewide Importance” based on the 2014 Orange County Important Farmland Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation (Environmental Checklist question 2[a]). The proposed Project would not result in pressures to convert farmlands to other uses, and the proposed Project site is not within a Williamson Act contract (Environmental Checklist question 2[b]). No part of the GAIP site or adjacent areas is zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production, nor would the GAIP result in the loss of forest land or conversion to non-forest use (Environmental Checklist questions 2[c] through 2[e]). • Air Quality (odors): The GAIP does not propose any land uses or modification to operations that would result in the creation of odors. The existing operations at the Airport involve minor odor-generating activities such as airplane exhaust; however, these types of odors are typical of an airport and would not create an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast Air Quality Management District ‘s (“SCAQMD’s”) Rule 402 or extend beyond the limits of the Airport (Environmental Checklist question 3[e]). • Biological Resources: The GAIP would not result in any direct habitat removal or modification to habitat that supports candidate, sensitive, or special status species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (Environmental Checklist questions 4[a] and 4[b]). No designated wetlands or jurisdictional waters are located on the Airport property. The GAIP would also not result in indirect impacts to downstream resources because the GAIP would not change the water 1 The IS/NOP identified aesthetics as a topic not receiving further evaluation in the Draft Program EIR. However, a comment was received during the NOP review period requesting an evaluation of the aesthetic impacts of the Project. Therefore, the potential impact to the overall character of the Airport as viewed from surrounding uses (Environmental Checklist question 1[c]) and light and glare effects (Environmental Checklist question 1[d]) will be evaluated in the Draft Program EIR.



characteristics or discharge points for flows leaving the Airport (Environmental Checklist question 4[c]). The GAIP would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as the GAIP does not adversely affect any waters supporting marine life and does not alter the existing Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (“WHMP”) or introduce other elements that would increase the potential for aircraft collisions with migratory birds (Environmental Checklist question 4[d]). The GAIP would not result in removal of trees; thus, the GAIP would not conflict with a tree preservation policy and would not impact nesting birds through removal of vegetation (Environmental Checklist question 4[e]). The GAIP would not interfere with the goals of the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (“NCCP/HCP”) because it does not substantially impact habitat, species, or uses of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The GAIP would not substantially change the noise or other characteristics that would have the potential to jeopardize local populations of wildlife species and other target species covered under the NCCP/HCP or designated sensitive habitats (Environmental Checklist question 4[f]). • Geology and Soils: No earthquake faults are identified on the GAIP site, and the GAIP site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The northern portion of the Airport site (i.e., north of Runway 20R and the long-term and employee parking areas north of I-405) is subject to liquefaction; however, this area would not be affected by the GAIP improvements. The Airport site is flat and would not be subject to landslides (Environmental Checklist questions 6[a] through 6[d]). The GAIP does not propose any physical improvements that would require an alternative wastewater disposal system; therefore, no soils impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur (Environmental Checklist question 6[e]). • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (hazardous materials sites; airport land use

plans; private airstrips; emergency evacuation plan; wildlands): The closest Cortese List site is approximately 1 mile southwest of the Airport; therefore, the GAIP would not expose the public to hazardous materials associated with the sites on the Cortese List (Environmental Checklist question 8[d]). No private airstrips are in the vicinity of the GAIP site, and the GAIP would not require an amendment to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan prepared for JWA (Environmental Checklist questions 8[e] and 8[f]). The GAIP would not impair or interfere with implementation of the emergency evacuation plan because it would not alter the types of facilities on site or access to the Airport (Environmental Checklist question 8[g]). The GAIP is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to wildlands (Environmental Checklist question 8[h]). • Hydrology (groundwater; drainage patterns; flood hazard areas; flooding;

inundation): The Airport does not provide for groundwater recharge and does not use groundwater. As a result, the GAIP would not involve any activities that would alter groundwater supplies (Environmental Checklist question 9[b]). The improvements associated with the GAIP would not substantially change the quantity of storm water or the points of discharge of runoff from the Airport to off-site areas; downstream drainage patterns would not be changed (Environmental Checklist questions 9[c] and 9[d]). The northern portion of the airfield is subject to potential flooding; however, this portion of the Airport is not an area used for general aviation, and the County has implemented several improvements to reduce flooding and ponding conditions at the Airport. Therefore, structures that may be constructed as part of the GAIP would not be subjected to a 100-year flood hazard. Additionally, the Airport is not in proximity to water bodies



that would result in exposure to flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam, nor would it be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Environmental Checklist questions 9[g] through 9[j]). • Land Use and Planning (divide an established community; habitat conservation

plan/natural community conservation plan): The GAIP does not propose any physical improvements that would extend beyond the Airport limits or changes that would substantially modify the interface of the Airport with the surrounding land uses; therefore, it would not physically divide an established community (Environmental Checklist question 10[a]). The GAIP would not substantially change the noise or other characteristics; and would not jeopardize local populations of species covered under the NCCP/HCP; and, therefore, would not conflict with provisions of an approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (Environmental Checklist question 10[c]). • Mineral Resources: The JWA site does not have significant existing or potential mineral or energy resources within its boundaries (Environmental Checklist questions 11[a] and 11[b]). • Noise (groundborne vibration, private airstrips): Groundborne vibration has not been identified as noticeable outside the Airport property; mass grading or blasting would not be required for implementation; and no part of the GAIP would change the Airport’s vibration-generation potential. Therefore, the GAIP would not result in excessive groundborne vibration (Environmental Checklist question 12[b]). JWA is a commercial airport, and no private airstrips are in the vicinity of the GAIP site (Environmental Checklist question 12[f]). • Population and Housing: The GAIP does not propose any development that would increase the population in the study area or within Orange County, nor would the GAIP be expected to have an effect on the population projections for Orange County because it would not provide infrastructure improvements that would lead to population increase. No housing is present on the GAIP site; therefore, the GAIP would not result in the displacement of people or housing (Environmental Checklist questions 13[a] through 13[c]). • Public Services: The response times from the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) facilities to the Airport would remain unchanged, and the GAIP would not result in the need for new or upgraded fire protection facilities. The GAIP would not result in the addition of new access points to the airfield or changes in the nature of the Airport operations and, therefore, would not result in an increased demand for police protection services. The GAIP would not result in development of any residential units and, therefore, would not create an increased demand on schools, neighborhood and regional parks, or other public facilities, such as libraries. (Environmental Checklist questions 14[a][i] through 14[a][v]). • Recreation: The GAIP would not generate an increase in population or provide development that would result in increased usage of existing neighborhood and regional parks. No physical deterioration would occur to existing recreational facilities as a result of GAIP implementation (Environmental Checklist questions 15[a] and 15[b]). • Transportation/Traffic (air traffic; hazards due to design features/incompatible

uses; inadequate emergency access; conflict with policies, plans, and programs): The GAIP may result in an incremental increase in certain types of general aviation flights



and facilitate the transition to newer aircraft operating at the Airport; however, it would not change the air traffic patterns or result in a substantial safety risk due to an increase in operations (Environmental Checklist question 16[c]). The GAIP does not propose any substantial modifications to the Airport access points that would alter the operations of the off-site circulation network. Therefore, the GAIP is not anticipated to result in impacts associated with design features; emergency access would not be impeded; and there would be no conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities (Environmental Checklist questions 16[d] through 16[f]). • Utilities and Service Systems (storm water drainage facilities; sufficient landfill

capacity; compliance with statutes and regulations): The Airport site is fully developed, and storm drains have been sized to accommodate storm flows in compliance with applicable standards. Changes to the quantity or flow rates of runoff from the Airport are not anticipated (Environmental Checklist question 18[c]). Any increased solid waste generated at the Airport would be able to be accommodated with the current landfill capacity and would comply with existing regulations pertaining to solid waste (Environmental Checklist questions 18[f] and 18[g]). 2.3.3 EIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS This Draft Program EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the County of Orange/JWA and will be circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period, as mandated by the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15105). On September 26, 2018, as part of the public review period, there will be a public meeting. The meeting will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the JWA Administrative Offices, in the Airport Commission hearing room. The address for the JWA Administrative Offices is listed below. The meeting will provide the public an opportunity to provide input on the EIR and to ask questions about the GAIP. At any time during the public review period, written comments concerning the adequacy of the document can be submitted by interested public agencies and members of the public to: John Wayne Airport Attn: Lea Choum, JWA Project Manager 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 or via email to [email protected] After the public review comment period, written responses to all written comments received during the public review period pertaining to environmental issues will be prepared as part of the Final Program EIR. As required by CEQA, responses to comments submitted by responsible public agencies will be distributed to those agencies for review at least 10 days prior to consideration of the Final EIR by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A public meeting before the Orange County Airport Commission regarding the GAIP will be held. The Airport Commission will also make a recommendation on the proposed GAIP to the Board of Supervisors. The Orange County Board of Supervisors is the decision-making body for the proposed GAIP. The Board of Supervisors will consider whether to certify the Final Program EIR and to adopt findings relative to the proposed GAIP’s environmental effects. It will then consider whether to approve or deny the proposed GAIP.



The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is the agency responsible for regulation of all aspects of civil aviation.2 As such, any modifications to the airfield facilities would be considered a federal action. If the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed GAIP, improvements on the airfield (e.g., Fixed Base Operators (“FBO”) buildings, roadway realignment, fuel farm) would require modification to the Airport Layout Plan and thus would be considered a federal action and require approval by the FAA. Additionally, implementation of the General Aviation Facility (“GAF”) would require approval by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). As federal actions, approvals by the FAA and CBP will be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). NEPA requires each Federal agency to disclose to the interested public a clear, accurate description of potential environmental impacts associated with proposed Federal actions. This Program EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; however, information contained in this document may also be used in the GAIP NEPA documents, which would be prepared pursuant to FAA and CBP standards. PROJECT HISTORY General aviation activities were started on what ultimately became JWA by aviation pioneer Eddie Martin, who founded the airfield. From 1923 to 1939, the Airport operated as a privately owned general aviation facility. JWA became a publicly owned facility in 1939. After serving as a military base during World War II, it was returned by the federal government to the County. A passenger terminal was built in 1967 but was demolished in 1994 after a new terminal and parking structure facilities opened in 1990. Through all of the improvements, the County remained committed to maintaining both general aviation and commercial aviation uses. In 2016, general aviation accounted for the majority of JWA's total aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings). The level of general aviation at the Airport has varied over the years with a high of 503,829 operations3 in 1991 and a low of 174,726 in 2013. However, general aviation has consistently represented the majority of operations at the Airport. In 2016, the most recent year with complete information, there were 192,800 general aviation operations, which represents nearly 67 percent of the Airport's total number of operations (JWA 2017a). Although general aviation accounts for the majority of JWA's total aircraft operations, over the past approximately 25 years, there has been an overall decline (- 19.2 percent) in general aviation aircraft based at JWA (JWA 2017b). Historical general aviation trends have shown a consistent decline in single-engine aircraft since 1980 at the Airport. Multi-engine piston aircraft experienced a sharp decline in the early 1990s and have continued to decrease, although at a slower rate; turbine-powered aircraft (turbo prop and jet) experienced variable growth at the Airport. Business jet operations steadily increased from 2003 to 2006, where it tapered to around 25,000 in annual operations and has remained relatively stable since then (AECOM 2018). A number of factors led to the proposed comprehensive update of JWA’s general aviation facilities. General aviation services and facilities at the Airport have not been comprehensively 2 Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”), part of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), are rules that prescribe the FAA as governing all aviation activities in the United States. 3 The number of operations includes air taxi operations. An air taxi is an aircraft certificated for commercial service available for hire on demand. An operation is defined as either a takeoff or landing, each counting as one operation.



studied since 1990; and the character of general aviation has changed significantly since that time including, but not limited to (1) the introduction of new aircraft into, and other changes within, the general aviation fleet; (2) the advanced age of some of JWA's general aviation structures and resultant need for improvements; (3) the need to ensure compliance with FAA requirements related to proximity of buildings to taxiways and runways; and (4) the fact that a number of general aviation-related long-term leases have expired or are nearing expiration.4 In 2015, a series of meeting and outreach efforts were conducted by Airport staff with the general aviation tenants and stakeholders to identify issues the general aviation community would like addressed and priorities for making improvements. Input was received from: • Atlantic Aviation • Martin Aviation • Orange County Sheriff’s Department • Sunrise Aviation • Harmic Air • Orange County Flight Center

• McHone Southcoast Associates • Signature Flight Support4 • West Coast Charters • Southern California Pilots Association • Executive Hangars • Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance4 After meeting with stakeholders, planning goals and objectives were developed by the Airport and a preliminary planning process was established (see Sections 1.4 and 3.3 for the planning objectives) for the process of evaluating and planning for the future needs of the general aviation community at the Airport through a comprehensive GAIP. As part of the preliminary assessment, three primary options for general aviation improvements were evaluated. At the request of the Orange County Airport Commission, a subsequent third party assessment of these alternatives was performed. The review focused on the alternatives’ (1) conformance with FAA Airport Design standards to the extent feasible; (2) operational characteristics such as ground taxi flows and potential impacts to the air traffic controllers; (3) conformance with building height restrictions and with the Code of Federal Regulations (specifically Title 14, Part 77 [“Part 77”]); and (4) layout requirements for efficient and effective operation of the FBO facilities. The alternative that JWA staff recommended for further evaluation as the proposed GAIP was supported by the third party assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.5.1 GENERAL SETTING

County Setting The Airport is an unincorporated County island surrounded by the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine. An extensive arterial highway and freeway system surrounds the Airport, providing access from several locations. Freeway access to the Airport is provided via Interstate 4 Interim leases were awarded on February 14, 2017, to Atlantic Aviation and ACI Jet that extend through December 31, 2018. ACI Jet replaced Signature Flight Support as a full service FBO at the Airport. Additionally, on May 9, 2017, the lease for Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance was extended to December 31, 2018. The Limited Service FBO Martin Aviation lease, which includes the Lyon Air Museum, is a long-term lease that extends through year 2036; therefore, this area is not part of the GAIP.



(“I”) 405, State Route (“SR”) 55, and SR 73. Arterial access to the terminal area is from MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. Arterial access to the uses on the west side of the Airport is from Red Hill Avenue and Paularino Avenue. Orange County is a highly urbanized setting. It is the third-most populous county in California, with about 3 million residents and the sixth-most populous county in the United States. In 2015, it is estimated the annual payroll for all sectors in Orange County was over $80.7 billion (U.S. Census). John Wayne Airport JWA serves both domestic and international destinations, with flights to Canada and Mexico. In 2016, over 10 million passengers were served. JWA is the only airport in Orange County that provides commercial passenger and air-cargo service and is the primary provider of general aviation services and facilities in the County (JWA 2017c). Fullerton Municipal Airport is also a general aviation airport in Orange County with capacity for 600 aircraft. Currently, 230 aircraft are based out of the Fullerton Municipal Airport. Facilities at the Airport include two runways: a 5,701-foot main runway and a 2,887-foot general aviation runway. The existing taxiway system is composed of three parallel and a number of exit taxiways, which facilitate the movement of aircraft while on the ground at JWA. Runway use at the Airport is based on aircraft size, with commercial aircraft and large jets using Runway 20R and smaller general aviation aircraft primarily using Runway 20L. With winds predominantly coming from the ocean, aircraft depart to the south and arrive from the north about 95 percent of the time with slight variations from year to year. The flow reverses with departures to the north primarily during Santa Ana wind conditions. A “remain overnight” (“RON”) parking apron for commercial aircraft is located primarily south of the passenger terminal with some RON positions also located at the north end of the terminal building. The south apron area also serves all-cargo aircraft and cargo staging during all-cargo operating hours. The north RON area is shared with the north commuter terminal. The terminal building is one contiguous building encompassing 730,505 square feet and providing 20 passenger loading bridges. Commuter holdroom areas are located at the north and south ends of the concourses, at Gates 1A, 1B, and 1C and Gates 22A, 22B, and 22C, respectively. Access to the commuter aircraft is from the tarmac and not via a passenger loading bridge. The Airport has two fuel storage facilities, or “fuel farms”—one for commercial airliners and the other for general aviation.5 The commercial fuel farm is located in the northwest area of the Airport and consists of three aboveground storage tanks containing Jet A fuel. An underground hydrant fuel system pumps fuel directly from the fuel farm to aircraft parked at the passenger terminal building, which is more operationally efficient and environmentally beneficial than using refueling trucks. The general aviation fuel farm is located in the southeast area of the Airport and consists of five underground storage tanks, which provide Jet A fuel and avgas. Fuel 5 Wickland Pipelines LLC is currently constructing a new pipeline and two new fuel tanks on the west side of the Airport for the storage of Jet-A fuel. This will be located next to the commercial fuel farm. The new fuel tanks and pipeline are identified as a cumulative project in Section 4.0 of this Program EIR.



is delivered to parked general aviation aircraft using refueling trucks operated by the full-service FBOs. In March 2014, an Economic Impact Study was prepared for JWA. The Airport makes a substantial contribution to the regional economy. The annual direct impacts of ongoing operations at JWA and of spending by visitors arriving at JWA were estimated to be 22,000 direct jobs (or 19,500 direct full-time equivalent jobs), earning approximately $790 million in direct wages and salaries. Direct employment generated $1.5 billion in direct gross domestic product and $2.8 billion in direct economic output in the regional economy annually (InterVISTAS). JWA sustains itself financially through fees and charges without receiving any support from Orange County’s general fund. The airport generates revenues to various levels of government. In 2012, taxes paid by passengers, employers and employees at JWA totaled $231 million. The majority of the amount collected (73 percent) accrued to the State, followed by the federal government (21 percent), with 6 percent going to local government. General aviation is the major source of landings and take-offs at the Airport. Combined, airlines, airline support services and general aviation is the largest category for employment at the Airport (InterVISTAS). 2.5.2 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES Historic aerial photography indicates that the overall size and layout of the general aviation facilities have remained mostly unchanged for more than 20 years (AECOM 2018). It is estimated that as many as 750 aircraft parking spaces existed in 1994. Since then, no parking areas have been added to increase aircraft storage capacity, while a few areas have been reduced or replaced by buildings and development, effectively decreasing the total number of aircraft parking spaces available at the Airport when compared to previous years. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the portion of the Airport dedicated to predominately general aviation uses and Exhibit 2-2 provides a conceptual facilities layout for the existing facilities. General aviation services currently provided at the Airport include the following:

• Aircraft handling/support (fueling, cleaning, catering) • Ground transportation/customer parking • Aircraft storage (hangars and tie-downs) • Flight schools/training/rental • Aircraft charter • Aircraft maintenance JWA is the home base for more than 480 private general aviation aircraft including helicopters and single-engine, multi-engine, and turbine aircraft. Currently (2017), JWA has two full-service FBOs (Atlantic Aviation and ACI Jet) and two limited service FBOs (Martin Aviation and Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance). The full service FBOs provide aircraft fueling services, supplies, aircraft maintenance, flying lessons, and other services at the Airport. The Airport is also home to three flight schools (Sunrise Aviation, Orange County Flight Center [OCFC], and Revolution Aviation).

General Aviation Improvement Program Area at JWAJohn Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program

UV55

Mac

Art

hur

Blv

d

Campus

Dr

Red Hi ll

Ave

Baker St

Santa A

na Ave

Jambore

e Rd

§̈¦405Main St

Air

port

Way

M

D:\P

roje

cts\

LAN

\010

2\M

XDs\

EIR

\ex_

Avia

tion_

Are

a_20

1803

05.m

xd

1,200 0 1,200600Feet²

Airport Property Boundary

Potential Laydown Areas

Potential Development Area

Exhibit 2-1Aerial Source: ESRI 2016

D:\P

roje

cts\

LAN

\010

2\G

RA

PH

ICS

\EIR

\ex_

Con

cept

ual_

Layo

ut_F

acilt

ies_

Exi

stin

g_20

1803

05.a

i

Exhibit 2-2John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program

Conceptual Facilities Layout - Existing Facilities

7

Figure 3: Existing Conditions

Source: AECOM 2018

12

500 250 0 500Feet



In addition to 379 general aviation tie-down/hangar spaces leased by the County, tie-down and hangar spaces are also provided by FBOs and other lease holders at the Airport (JWA 2016). In addition to the aircraft storage facilities operated directly through the County, Martin Aviation, South Coast Associates, Executive Hangars, and the two full service FBOs have an additional 30 apron spaces, 111 T-Hangars, 35 box hangars, and 31 spaces in 5 large conventional/community hangars (Atlantic Aviation has 3, Martin Aviation has 1, and ACI Jet has 1) for based aircraft. Furthermore, Martin Aviation has three large conventional/community hangars, and Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance has four additional box hangars used temporarily for maintenance work and not used to store based aircraft.6 Table 2-2 summarizes the distribution of the existing aircraft parking/storage facilities at the Airport. A more detailed discussion of the existing general aviation facilities at the Airport is provided in the General Aviation Facility Requirements Technical Report (AECOM 2017). This includes a discussion of which facilities are County owned and which facilities are owned by the various leaseholders at the Airport.

TABLE 2-2 EXISTING PARKING/STORAGE FACILITIES AT JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT

Parking/Storage Facility Type County

Atlantic Aviation ACI Jet

Martin Aviation

Executive Hangars

South Coast Hangars

Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance Apron spaces 0 0 18 12 0 0 0 Tie-down spaces 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 Box hangars 0 0 25 0 0 10 4* Large conventional/ community hangars 0 3 1 Partially* 1 3* 0 0 0 T-hangars 13 0 14 0 84 0 0 Shade Structures 60 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total spaces/ Hangars 379 3 58 16 84 10 4 Source: AECOM, 2017. Notes: 1) Transient parking/storage facilities are highlighted with an asterisk (*). 2) The T-hangars owned by the County are managed by Executive Hangars. In addition to the terminal and airfield area, the County of Orange/JWA owns property south of the Airport, which serves as a clear zone and has been developed as a golf course. Long-term and employee parking is located north of I-405.

2.5.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES The area surrounding the Airport is generally urban in character and is located within the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Irvine. Although the formerly unincorporated area of Santa Ana Heights was fully annexed into the City of Newport Beach in 2008, several unincorporated areas remain in the vicinity of the Airport. The majority of land surrounding the Airport is already developed, generally in accordance with the adopted land use plans and policies of the relevant local jurisdictions. As discussed below, the County developed a Land Use 6 Brief descriptions of the various types of hangar facilities is provided in Section 3.6.1 of this Program EIR.



Compatibility Program (“LUCP”) for areas south of the Airport where existing residential uses experienced higher noise levels than those normally considered compatible with residential land uses. This resulted in the transition of some residential uses to non-noise sensitive uses. Surrounding land uses include the following: • In the City of Newport Beach, RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached), RM (Multiple-Unit Residential), OS (Open Space), CO-G (General Commercial Office), PR (Parks and Recreation), and CG (General Commercial) in the Santa Ana Heights community to the south, and AO (Office Airport), CO-G (General Commercial Office), CG General Commercial, MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal) and PF (Public Facilities) in the Airport Area to the east • Business Park uses north of Interstate (“I”) 405 in the City of Irvine and along MacArthur Boulevard, north of Campus Drive in the Irvine Business Complex (“IBC”) • Recreation and open space uses at the end of the runways south of the Airport in unincorporated Orange County and in the City of Newport Beach • Industrial park uses west of the Airport between Red Hill Avenue and JWA in the City of Costa Mesa • An important natural reserve and habitat to the south of the Airport, commonly known as the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve or Back Bay, in the City of Newport Beach

Land Use Compatibility Program On February 23, 1972, the County adopted Resolution No. 72-204, which designated JWA to have a “noise problem,” as that term is defined in Section 5020 of the California Noise Standards (21 CCR Sections 5000 et seq.). If an airport has been designated by a county to have a “noise problem,” no incompatible uses with a Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) value of 65 decibels (“dB”) can be located inside the noise contour line unless the airport proprietor has applied for or received a variance pursuant to the California Noise Standards.7 In 1984, to address the noise problem, the County of Orange prepared the LUCP for areas south of the Airport and included portions of what was then unincorporated Santa Ana Heights and certain neighborhoods within the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the LUCP was to: (1) establish a program to achieve land use compatibility between projected noise levels at JWA and land uses in all affected areas; (2) develop a long-range plan for the unincorporated Santa Ana Heights area; and (3) ensure conformance with CCR Title 21, the Orange County General Plan, and Airport Land Use Commission policies. The LUCP included an acoustical insulation program for homes in the Santa Ana Heights area (previously an unincorporated island, subsequently annexed into Newport Beach). The program, identified as the Acoustical Insulation Program (“AIP”), provided sound attenuation for the residences projected to be within the 65-CNEL contour and exposed to aircraft noise levels in 7 A variance is essentially an administrative procedure that is included in the California Noise Standards to allow an airport proprietor to develop and implement programs to reduce the “noise impact area” around the airport. JWA has been granted five variances from Caltrans, Aeronautics Division, as follows: November 1974, December 1976, March 1979, July 1982, and June 1987. The County currently has a pending variance application with Caltrans consistent with the requirements of the California Noise Standards.



excess of 65 CNEL. Over 400 residences have been acoustically insulated and the owners have granted avigation easements to the County as the proprietor of JWA. In addition to the AIP, the County adopted the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (“SAHSP”), which provided for the conversion of the residential area along Birch Street to Acacia Avenue to a business park. Noise Monitoring Program As part of its ongoing efforts to operate JWA in a manner sensitive to the residents who live under the approach and departure corridors, the County of Orange has developed one of the most stringent access and noise abatement programs in the country. See also discussion in Section 2.6.3. To obtain data on the noise characteristics of Airport operations, the County has established a sophisticated Airport Noise Monitoring System (“ANMS”), which monitors aircraft noise levels and obtains accurate data regarding aircraft flight tracks and fleet mix. The noise levels of all commercial aircraft operations and many general aviation operations are recorded at 10 permanent noise monitoring station (“NMS”) around the Airport as part of the ANMS. The locations of the NMS are shown on Exhibit 4.7-7, provided in Section 4.7, Noise. That exhibit also shows the boundaries of the local jurisdictions. Three of the NMS are located in Santa Ana Heights (1S, 2S, and 3S), which has been annexed by the City of Newport Beach; four are located in the City of Newport Beach (4S, 5S, 6S, and 7S), one is located in Irvine (8N), one is located in Santa Ana (9N), and one is located in Tustin (10N). The data from the ANMS is combined with data from other sources to permit precise noise modeling. Radar trackings and noise levels measured at the NMS have produced very accurate depictions of flight tracks. Further, both CNEL and Single Event Noise Exposure Level (“SENEL”) are monitored and calculated each day and for each aircraft. The JWA Access and Noise Office is primarily responsible for monitoring compliance with and enforcing County/JWA regulations regarding aircraft noise and operational restrictions.

REGULATORY SETTING

2.6.1 PRIMARY AGENCIES WITH REGULATORY AUTHORITY The regulation of airports and aircraft is subject to a wide range of federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. The federal government exercises authority over much of the aviation field, including a complete preemption of the regulation of aircraft in flight undertaken for noise control or noise reduction purposes. In brief, all regulatory authority over procedures used in the operation of aircraft in flight and the control and use of the navigable airspace of the United States is exclusively federal. In addition, the federal government has regulatory authority related to aircraft and aircraft engine emissions. The State of California is presently limited in its regulation of aircraft noise to the application and enforcement of the California Noise Standards (which are a regulatory structure adopted by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) under the authority of provisions of the California Public Utilities Code and which appear in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations). The State also utilizes the provisions of the California Public Utilities Code to establish county-wide Airport Land Use Commissions (“ALUCs”) to set land use compatibility standards for



primarily off-airport development in locations sensitive to aircraft-related noise, safety and overflight impacts. These regulations are discussed in more detail in the noise effects section of this Program EIR (Section 4.7, Noise). Generally, the State’s authority is preempted in this area and is limited to land use compatibility recommendations with respect to airports; and, at airports such as JWA, the State recommendations cannot impose requirements regarding airport operations, including operational frequency of aircraft or regulations limiting the number, type, or time-of-day when aircraft operations occur. Rather the compatibility recommendations focus on land use compatibility in the environs of airports. The County, as the local governmental entity that owns and operates JWA, does have a recognized residual regulatory authority (despite the federal regulation of the field) for safety impacts and for purposes of limiting its own liability for noise. Historically, this regulatory authority has been constrained by various provisions of federal law. The County has exercised this limited (“proprietor”) authority over JWA in an effort to strike an appropriate balance between the need for the Orange County community to receive air transportation services and the environmental effects of such activity in the areas surrounding JWA. This proprietor authority, however, has been limited by the Airport Noise and Capacity act of 1990, as further discussed below. 2.6.2 AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT OF 1990 A key federal regulation governing the operation of airports is the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA;” 49 U.S.C. Section 47521 et seq.). In the legislative findings, the U.S. Congress explained that “aviation noise management is crucial to the continued increase in airport capacity” because “community noise concerns have led to uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that could impede the national air transportation system.” (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 47521(1)-(2).) Therefore, the U.S. Congress emphasized that a “noise policy must be carried out at the national level.” (49 U.S.C. Section 47521(3).) As a general matter, ANCA precludes the local imposition of noise and access restrictions that are not otherwise in accordance with the national noise policy. That being said, a limited set of exemptions to the requirements of ANCA were provided upon ANCA’s enactment. Here, ANCA’s limitations do not apply to JWA’s existing curfew, limitations on the number of annual passengers, number of average daily departures, or similar existing limitations because the 1985 Settlement Agreement, as amended, is “an intergovernmental agreement including an airport noise or access restriction in effect on November 5, 1990” (49 U.S.C. Section 47524(d)(3)).8 2.6.3 1985 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Following adoption of the 1985 JWA Master Plan and the certification of EIR 508, litigation related to the 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 of Newport Beach and two citizens groups (Stop Polluting Our Newport [“SPON”] and the Airport Working Group [“AWG”]) in Orange County Superior Court. In addition, in April 1985, an appeal by the County was then pending in the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District from an earlier trial court ruling 8 In adopting the 1985 Master Plan and as mitigation under EIR 508, the County adopted, modified, or left intact various operational restrictions for JWA, including limits on operations during certain nighttime hours, maximum permitted single-event noise levels at defined noise monitoring station locations, limitations on the number of average daily departures by commercial airplane operators, and various other restrictions.



made under CEQA in respect to an earlier Master Plan for JWA adopted by the County in 1981 and its related EIR (“EIR 232”). In the summer of 1985, the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, SPON, and AWG (i.e., “the signatories”) reached a comprehensive agreement settling all pending actions and claims related to the 1985 Master Plan and EIR 508, as well as the pending appeal on the 1981 Master Plan/EIR 232 litigation. The agreement is commonly referred to as the “Settlement Agreement.” The stipulation was accepted and confirmed by an order of the District Court after a hearing in December 1985. The original term of the settlement stipulation required that it remain in effect through December 31, 2005. In 2003 and in 2014, the signatories took action to amend the Settlement Agreement. As part of the amendments, the term of the agreement was extended. Based on the 2014 amendment, the Settlement Agreement will stay in effect until December 31, 2030. The Settlement Agreement, as amended, reflects consensus between the settlement parties on the nature and extent of facility and operational improvements that may be implemented at JWA. Many of the provisions that govern noise and operational capacity are implemented through the JWA Phase 2 Commercial Airline Access Plan and Regulation (“Access Plan”). The Access Plan regulates commercial passenger and cargo carrier operations at JWA by placing limits on the hours of operation, maximum number of regulated average daily departures and annual passengers, and noise levels among other regulations. For over 30 years, the Settlement Agreement has balanced the development of facilities and the growth of operational capacity with the environmental concerns of the surrounding community. 2.6.4 GENERAL AVIATION NOISE ORDINANCE The County’s General Aviation Noise Ordinance (“GANO”) (County Ordinance 3505) establishes limitations on the maximum single event noise levels, which are applicable to both commercial and general aviation operations and noise restrictions applicable to nighttime operations (i.e., a curfew). The principal policy objective of the GANO is to exclude from operations at JWA general aviation aircraft which generate noise levels greater than the noise levels permitted for aircraft used by commercial air carriers. Generally, general aviation operations are permitted 24 hours a day, subject to daytime and nighttime noise limits. However, the curfew prohibits regularly scheduled commercial operations and general aviation operations exceeding 86 dB SENEL at specified noise-monitoring terminals from taking off between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM (8:00 AM on Sundays) and from landing between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM (8:00 AM on Sundays).9 2.6.5 APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS As indicated above in Section 2.3.3, improvements on the airfield side of the Airport would require approval by the FAA; and implementation of a GAF would require approval by CBP. Each of these federal agencies have design requirements that would need to be complied with as part of implementation of the improvements identified in the GAIP. These include provisions 9 These local proprietor restrictions were adopted prior to the passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA”). Therefore, these restrictions are “grandfathered” under the terms of that statute and its implementing regulations.



pertaining to the height of the buildings, setbacks of buildings from the runway and taxiways, and other facility requirements. As part of this Project, a preliminary assessment has been conducted to ensure new facilities proposed as part of the GAIP could be constructed in compliance with applicable standards. However, given the conceptual nature of the improvements, the evaluation of conformance with applicable federal regulations would be conducted at the time implementation of the improvements is proposed and precise design plans are available. ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR This Draft EIR is organized into eight sections, with each containing its own references section. A list of the Draft Program EIR sections and a brief description of their contents is provided below to assist the reader in locating information.

• Section 1.0, Executive Summary: This section provides summaries of the Project Description, alternatives to the proposed GAIP, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. • Section 2.0, Project History and Setting: This section briefly discusses the purpose of the EIR, describes the environmental review process, provides an overview of the GAIP history, describes the environmental setting of the GAIP, and gives an overview of the EIR’s organization. • Section 3.0, Project Description: This section provides a detailed description of the GAIP characteristics and a statement of the Project Objectives. A description of both the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 is provided. • Section 4.0, Existing Conditions, Impact Analysis, and Mitigation Program: This section contains subsections 4.1, Aesthetics, through 4.11, Water Quality. Within this section, the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 are discussed at an equal level of detail. Each subsection includes discussions on the following topics: regulatory setting (if applicable), methodology, existing conditions, thresholds of significance, impact analysis, cumulative impacts, mitigation program (if any), level of significance after mitigation, and references. • Section 5.0, Alternatives: This section considers three alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative. The alternatives were developed to mitigate or avoid the significant effects the GAIP may have on the environment. In addition, this section identifies the environmentally superior alternative. • Section 6.0, Long-Term Implications: This section contains a summary discussion of any significant unavoidable impacts, potential growth-inducing impacts, a discussion of energy (electricity and natural gas) in accordance with Appendix F of State CEQA Guidelines, and any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the GAIP. • Section 7.0, Persons and Organizations Consulted: This section lists the persons and organizations that were contacted to obtain data on the preparation of this EIR. • Section 8.0, Preparers: This section lists the persons that directly contributed to preparation of this EIR.



Sections 1.0 through 8.0 and Appendices A through H are provided on a CD and the JWA website. REFERENCES AECOM. 2017 (December). General Aviation Facility Requirements Technical Report. Orange, CA.

———.2018. (April). Orange County/John Wayne Airport (JWA) General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) Based Aircraft Parking—Capacity Analysis and General Aviation Constrained Forecasts. Orange, CA (Appendix D) Fullerton, City of, Airport. (Fullerton). 2017 (accessed September). Airport Statistics. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/gov/departments/public_works/airport/airport_statistics.asp. InterVISTAS Consulting. 2014 (March). Final Report: John Wayne Airport Economic Impact Study. Washington, D.C.: InterVISTAS Consulting. Orange, County of, John Wayne Airport (JWA). 2017a. (accessed September). JWA General Aviation Overview. http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/default.

———.2017b (accessed September). General Aviation Improvement Program. Costa Mesa, CA: JWA. http://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/gaimprovement. ———.2017c. (accessed September). JWA Overview. http://www.ocair.com/aboutjwa/ ———.2014 (September). Final Environmental Impact Report No. 617 for the John Wayne Airport

Settlement Agreement (SCH No. 2001111135). Costa Mesa, CA: JWA.

INTRODUCTION PROJECT HISTORY AND SETTING … · Project History and Setting 2-2 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT...

Documents

Transcript of INTRODUCTION PROJECT HISTORY AND SETTING … · Project History and Setting 2-2 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT...