comment letter i53 comment letter i61 - sandiegocounty.gov · 2019-02-18 · were not used in the...

Letters of Comment and Responses ATTACHMENT D-280

County of San Diego October 2018 McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update – Final PEIR

Comment Letter I53 Comment Letter I61 Comment Letter I61

I61-1



I61-2

I61-3



I61-3 cont.

I61-5

I61-4



I61-5 cont.

I61-6



I61-7

I61-8

I61-9



I61-9 cont.

I61-10

I61-11



I61-11 cont.

I61-12

I61-13

I61-14



I61-15

I61-16

I61-17



I61-17 cont.

I61-18

I61-19



I61-19 cont.

I61-20



I61-21

I61-20 cont.



Response to Letter I61

Giovanni and Anne Bertussi

I61-1 The County acknowledges these introductory comments; however, they do not present specific information regarding an issue concerning the analysis or adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-2 The County acknowledges these introductory comments; however, they do not present specific information regarding an issue concerning the analysis or adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-3 Please refer to Master Response 6 (Existing Airport Activity).

I61-4 In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency is not required to prepare formal responses to comments received during the public comment period during the Notice of Preparation process. In addition, Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines only requires that input from responsible and trustee agencies pertaining to the scope and content of the environmental information related to its jurisdiction must be included in an EIR. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may conduct early public consultation with parties other than responsible or trustee agencies but is not required to. Therefore, the analysis within the PEIR is adequate, and no revisions to the PEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Regarding future aircraft operations, the PEIR did identify, calculate, and disclose various

environmental conditions resulting from future aircraft operations, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.

I61-5 The County acknowledges this comment; however, it does not raise an issue concerning

the analysis or adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-6 The comment includes summary remarks regarding the PEIR’s perceived deficiencies. The County acknowledges the comments; however, they do not raise a specific issue concerning the analysis of adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-7 Please refer to Master Response 6 (Existing Airport Activity).

I61-8 The comment states that PEIR Table S-2 is missing a discussion of air quality. Table S-2 is a summary of potentially significant impacts and their associated mitigation measures. As discussed in the PEIR, air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, it would not be included in Table S-2. Please see PEIR Section 3.1.2 for a complete analysis of air quality.



The comment also states that no noise impacts are identified resulting from aircraft. As discussed and analyzed in the PEIR Section 2.4.2.1, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant noise impacts from aircraft. Therefore, it would not be included in Table S-2. Please see PEIR Section 2.3.2.1 for a complete analysis.

I61-9 In accordance with Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall contain a brief summary of areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Section S.3, Areas of Controversy, of the PEIR refers a reader to Appendix A, which includes all of the comments received during the NOP comment period. Therefore, the PEIR adequately stated the areas of controversy and no revisions have been made to the PEIR in response to this comment.

I61-10 The County acknowledges this comment; however, it does not raise an issue concerning the analysis or adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-11 Please refer to Master Response 7 (FAA Involvement and Oversight).

I61-12 The County acknowledges this comment; however, it does not raise an issue concerning the analysis or adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-13 The County acknowledges the comments; however, they do not raise an issue concerning the analysis of adequacy of the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Therefore, no further response is required. This comment is included in the Final PEIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

I61-14 The commenter states that the PEIR does not properly consider and address important potential flight noise and air quality impacts. The PEIR used a full year’s data using actual flight tracks, elevations, and aircraft types in the methodology used for evaluating the Proposed Project’s potential effects to noise and air quality. See PEIR Section 2.4 Noise and Section 3.1.2 Air Quality, and their associated technical studies.

The additional comments described by the commenter are not related to the Master Plan

Update or the PEIR. CEQA does not require a lead agency to respond to comments received on unrelated projects as a part of the analysis.

Please also refer to Response to Comment I61-8 regarding air quality.

I61-15 Please refer to the Response to Comment I61-4 above.

I61-16 Please refer to Master Response 10 (Program-level vs. Project-level Review). I61-17 The commenter states that the noise analysis conducted for the PEIR relied upon noise

measurements taken as part of the Airport’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). The County disagrees with this statement. While ambient noise measurements were taken as part of the construction noise analysis, this data is unrelated to the noise monitoring conducted as part of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and was not used in



preparation of the aircraft noise analysis. Also see Master Response 4 (Noise Monitors and PEIR Calculations).

As discussed in Section 2.4.1 of the PEIR, existing noise contours surrounding the Airport were produced using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), the FAA’s required model for evaluating noise impacts in the vicinity of airports. Inputs used to develop existing conditions noise contours included detailed flight information gathered in 2016 (operational data for January 1–December 31, 2016). This included an evaluation of operational data provided by the County’s Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System and FAA’s Traffic Flow Management System Counts and Air Traffic Activity System. Future year noise contours were also produced using AEDT, accounting for forecasted growth in the number of operations for each scenario analyzed along with other variables such as change in aircraft types operating at the Airport. More details on the noise analysis conducted for the PEIR can be found in Appendix D to the PEIR.

I61-18 Please refer to Response to Comment I61-17 and Master Response 4 (Noise Monitors and PEIR Calculations).

I61-19 The data obtained from the ANOMS system and used in the aircraft noise analysis pertained to operational information only. Noise measurements taken by the noise monitors were not used in the preparation of the noise contours included in the noise analysis in the PEIR. Please see Section 1.2.2 of Appendix D to the PEIR. Please also see Response to Comment I61-17.

I61-20 The comment pertains to the Airport’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. The commenter states that FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Agreement with the FAA should be comprehensively updated before the current Master Plan Update Process is completed. The comment is noted; however, as the comment does not provide evidence of an error nor evidence of a new significant effect related to the PEIR, no further response is warranted.

I61-21 These are conclusion comments. They do not raise specific issues regarding the content of the PEIR, but will be included as part of the administrative record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Proposed Project.

comment letter i53 comment letter i61 - sandiegocounty.gov · 2019-02-18 · were not used in the...

Documents