HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-16; Planning Commission; ; Code Requirements and Permit Review Procedures for New or Expanded Airport Land UsesMeeting Date: Oct. 16, 2024 Item 2
To: Planning Commission
Staff Contact: Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development
442-339-2721, mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Code Requirements and Permit Review Procedures for New or Expanded Airport
Land Uses
Location: Citywide
Case Numbers: GPA2024-0001, ZCA2024-003, LCPA2024-0021, and OAJ2024-0001 (PUB2024-
0008)
Applicant/Representative: City of Carlsbad Community Development Department
CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☐ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR☒Other:
Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☐ CUP ☐ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☒ GPA ☐ REZ ☒ LCPA☒Other: ZCA
CEQA Status: ☒The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion☐A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and
IS NOT on the Agenda
Commission Action: ☐Decision ☒ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action)
Recommended Action
That the Planning Commission ADOPT the following:
1)a Planning Commission resolution (Exhibit 1) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Addendum No. 2 to the
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report;
2)a Planning Commission resolution (Exhibit 2) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of amendments to the
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and
3)a Planning Commission resolution (Exhibit 3) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of procedures to
implement Public Utilities Code § 21661.6.
Project Description
The Project includes two components: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal
Program for new and expanded airport land uses; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code
§21661.6.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program are provided in
Exhibit 2. Exhibit 4 includes draft ordinance and policy language (strikeout/underline version) for all of the
proposed amendments. Proposed revisions to existing text are shown in order by section number, with strikeout
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 1 of 383
0
typeface (i.e., strikeout) illustrating deletions and underline typeface (i.e., underline) illustrating new text. The
proposed procedures to implement Public Utilities Code § 21661.6 are provided in Exhibit 3.
Code Amendments
The following amendments to the General Plan are proposed::
1)Specify as a policy statement city opposition to any changes to the Palomar Airport that would
increase the impact that the Palomar Airport has on neighboring communities and on city
resources beyond the B-II Enhanced Alternative.
2)Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
3)Require new or expanded “airport” land uses to obtain a new or amended Conditional Use Permit.
4)Permit “airport” development only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport.
The following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed:
1)Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
2)Permit “airport” land uses only by issuance of a new or amended Conditional Use Permit
3)Amend the zoning tables to remove “airport” as permissible land uses, such that only the
property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport as depicted in the city Zoning Map would
remain as conditionally permissible for “airport” land uses.
Amendments to the Local Coastal Program propose the following:
1)Land Use Plan – the proposed General Plan amendments (above) for those areas within or
impacting Coastal Zone areas.
2)Implementation Plan – the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (above) for those areas
within or impacting Coastal Zone areas.
Procedures
Under California law (Public Utilities Code § 21661.6) the acquisition of property for the expansion of the
airport may not begin until: (1) the County of San Diego (the “County”) submits a plan detailing the
proposed uses of the property to the city; and (2) the city holds a public hearing on the plan and
subsequently approves that plan.
Airport master plans are prepared to support planning for future needs for existing airports. The last
airport master plan completed for Palomar Airport was adopted on Dec. 8, 2021 (the “2021 Airport Master
Plan”), which was developed by the County to address future needs of Palomar Airport. The 2021 Airport
Master Plan identifies several improvements to meet anticipated growth in operations, including
extension of the existing runway to support a fleet of larger aircraft. Because the 2021 Airport Master
Plan may require the County to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of Palomar Airport (and
those properties are located within the limits of the city), the city has determined that it is necessary to
adopt procedures to guide the process in the review of plans and other actions of the County (Exhibit 3).
The procedures are designed to provide an expeditious review of County applications for approval of plans
to acquire property as required by Public Utilities Code § 21661.6, while ensuring that all interested parties
are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on such applications. Procedures concerning
noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating the city’s role, review, and approval of an
application for approval of a plan for an airport expansion or enlargement or where there is an acquisition
of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, would provide for the orderly growth of the
airport and help the city make necessary findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21661.6.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 2 of 383
Background
Under federal law, the United States Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is charged with regulating aircraft
and flight safety and sets certain standards and recommendations for airport design, construction, and operation.
The FAA has a system for categorizing public-use airports that is based in part on commercial passenger traffic.
Airport categories include “Commercial Service Airports,” “Reliever Airports,” and “General Aviation Airports.”
There are currently 26 Commercial Service Airports, 33 Reliever Airports, 133 General Aviation Airports in the
state. The Palomar Airport located in the City of Carlsbad (“City”) is a General Aviation Airport, owned and
operated by the County.
The Palomar Airport was opened in 1959 by the County after being relocated from Del Mar due to the construction
of Interstate 5 (“I-5”). The County Board of Supervisors (“County Board”) directed its staff on April 14, 1977, to
pursue annexation of the airport to the city. Shortly thereafter, the city filed a proposal to the San Diego Local
Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) seeking annexation. (LAFCO is responsible for coordinated and
overseeing changes to local governmental boundaries.) At its Sept. 11, 1978, meeting, LAFCO reviewed and
considered the request and adopted a resolution approving the annexation (LAFCO Annexation Case No. CA77-
50), and designating the annexed land as "Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No. 1.24).” In order to comply with the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, LAFCO required a zoning designation be placed upon the
airport property and for the County to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the city. The city and the County were
in agreement with this procedure and the evidence in the administrative record indicates that the County
voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its immunities with respect to Palomar Airport. On Dec. 19, 1978, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 5637 to order Palomar Airport annexed. On Sept. 24, 1980, the city approved
the Conditional Use Permit, Planning Case No. CUP-172 for the airport (Planning Commission Resolution No.
1699). On Nov. 18, 1980, the City Council granted the change of zone (planning case no. ZC-208) from L-C (limited
Control) to M (industrial) by Ordinance No. 9566. Since then, General Plan Maps and Zoning Maps produced by
the city have shown, and continue to show, the boundary of Palomar Airport (with a call-out label placed over the
airport’s mapped area to depict its location). Palomar Airport has a Public (P) General Plan land use designation
and is zoned Industrial (M) pursuant to the CMC, Zoning Ordinance (Title 21, Section 21.34). The city’s land uses
and zoning districts have been predicated upon the continued operation of Palomar Airport as it was designated
at the time of annexation.
Airport Master Planning and Airport Layout Plan
An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an airport or system of airports that prescribes short, medium,
and long-term development plans to meet future airport demand. The entity that owns or operates the airport
(known as the airport “sponsor”) typically prepares and adopts the airport master plan. Airport master plans
typically include a discussion of existing airport activities, demand forecasts, an examination of development
alternatives, and an Airport Layout Plan (“ALP”). The ALP, which the sponsor also prepares, is a set of drawings
that shows existing and anticipated airport facilities. The drawings include illustrations and descriptions of airport
facilities, runway protection zones, and runway safety areas and include basic airport and runway data tables. The
FAA has published a guidance document, Advisory Circular (“AC”) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, to advise
sponsors on ALP preparation. AC 150/5070-6B, provides guidance for the preparation of airport master plans to
support the modernization or expansion of airports. The analysis of various airside and landside functional areas
is typically performed with the guidance of several other FAA publications, including AC 150/5060-5, Airport
Capacity and Delay; AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design; and Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan
of Integrated Airport Systems (“NPIAS”).
The airport master plan considers future enhancements planned by the FAA due to advances in technology related
to automation information systems, communications, navigation, surveillance, and weather. An airport sponsor
is required to keep its ALP current and follow that plan, since those are requirements imposed for compliance
with the FAA’s Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (“AIP”). Typically, an airport sponsor will update an
airport master plan every 10 to 20 years to realign goals and objectives with current projections of the airport’s
development needs.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 3 of 383
An airport master plan was completed for Palomar Airport in 1975 (the “1975 Airport Master Plan”). The 1975
Airport Master Plan anticipated “unrestricted” demand to be approximately 500,000 annual operations by the
year 1990, but the “constrained” operations at Palomar Airport were anticipated to level-off at 290,000 annual
operations by 1995. (“Unconstrained” or “unrestricted” demand refers to the demand that an airport would
expect without taking into account any physical, operational, or legal impediments to an aircraft operator’s use
of the airport. The “constrained” forecast of demand takes those airport-specific conditions into account.) The
unrestricted forecast for the number of aircraft based at Palomar Airport was determined to be 786, but due to
Palomar Airport’s limited space, it was estimated that only 600 based aircraft could be accommodated. The 1975
Airport Master Plan identified a number of improvements that would be needed to meet this anticipated growth.
Of the improvements recommended in the 1975 Airport Master Plan, the most significant was construction of a
new parallel runway and extension of the existing runway. The 1975 Airport Master Plan proposed extending the
existing runway, Runway 06-24, to a landing length of 5,100 feet; it proposed constructing a parallel runway of
3,600 feet to the north. The County performed most of the construction and capital projects that the 1975 Airport
Master Plan proposed, but not the extension of Runway 06-24 or the construction of the parallel runway.
The County first updated the 1975 Airport Master Plan in 1997, when it adopted the 1997 Airport Master Plan.
While the County determined that the orientation and location of Runway 06-24 met FAA standards, the 1997
Airport Master Plan stated that it was desirable to construct additional runway capacity to meet Palomar Airport’s
“unconstrained” forecast demand and growing operations. The 1997 Airport Master Plan projected that, by 2015,
Palomar Airport would have approximately 610 based aircraft and approximately 260,000 annual aircraft
operations. As a result, the 1997 Airport Master Plan identified several improvements that would be desirable to
meet this anticipated growth, including extending the existing Runway 06-24 by 300 feet to the east (to a landing
length of 5,100 feet). The 1997 Airport Master Plan indicated that the actual need and specific timing for new
facilities would be established by levels of aircraft activity. However, the 1997 Airport Master Plan’s forecasted
aviation activity has not been realized, and the runway extension was never pursued during the planning period.
On Dec. 16, 2015, the County’s Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) directed County staff to update the 1997 Airport
Master Plan. The Board directed County staff to focus the airport master plan update on improving safety for the
aircraft currently using Palomar Airport within that airport’s existing property boundaries. On Oct. 10, 2018, the
Board approved the airport master plan update and certified the associated Program Environmental Impact
Report (the “PEIR”). On Nov. 6, 2018, Citizens for a Friendly Airport (“C4FA”), filed suit in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego (the “Court”) to challenge the Board’s action. On Jan. 26, 2021, the Superior
Court upheld the Final PEIR analysis and dismissed the claims, except for two items. Specifically, the Court held
that (1) the Final PEIR should have included supplemental noise analysis for areas farther from Palomar Airport,
and (2) an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the city must be obtained and secured if Palomar
Airport’s design status (its Airport Reference Code, or “ARC”) is changed to accommodate larger aircraft. On March
4, 2021, the Court ordered the County to set aside all approvals associated with the Board’s Oct. 10, 2018 decision,
including the approval of the airport master plan update, certification for the Final PEIR, and related actions, within
60 days. On May 5, 2021, the Board rescinded the approvals pursuant to the Court’s order. After completing
additional noise analysis, on Dec. 8, 2021, the County certified an updated PEIR and adopted another airport
master plan update (the “2021 Airport Master Plan”). The County also committed to continue working with the
FAA on noise concerns, which could include allowing “quiet hours” for takeoffs and landings or letting the County
charge fees if pilots do not comply with quiet-hour requests. C4FA did not appeal the County’s decision, and, as
of this writing, the County has not filed an application with the city to amend Palomar Airport’s existing conditional
use permit, CUP-172.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 4 of 383
Even though Palomar Airport’s general aviation operations have declined steadily in recent years, the FAA predicts
significant aviation growth at Palomar Airport to remain relatively constant throughout the forecast period (2016-
2036). According to the 2021 Airport Master Plan, if passenger activity shifts from San Diego International Airport
to Palomar Airport, there will be an increase in total operations between now and the end of the planning period.
The exact timing for implementation of airside and landside construction and capital projects are not defined in
the 2021 Airport Master Plan because project-specific information had not been fully developed. The 2021 Airport
Master Plan studied a runway extension of 200 feet in the near term; and an additional 600 feet in the long term
to support larger aircraft (a total of 800 feet). Under this alternative, the centerline of Runway 06-24 would shift
104 feet to the north. Final decisions on these projects have not been made. The adopted Dec. 8, 2021 County
Board Minute Order was to pursue the B-II Enhanced ARC design code now (200 feet, +/-10%) and a D-III ARC
modified design code in the future (900 feet total). Any extension greater than 800 feet to the east would require
relocation of El Camino Real.
Palomar Airport currently meets the design criteria for mid-sized business jets, referred to as a B-II Airport
Reference Code. Palomar Airport’s B-II classification supports aircraft approach speeds of up to 120 knots and
wingspans of up to 78 feet. As part of the 2021 Airport Master Plan, the County adopted the B-II Enhanced
Alternative, which would maintain the safety and design standards for Palomar Airport’s current B-II classification.
Under the B-II Enhanced Alternative, the County would make certain Improvements to Palomar Airport, including
installation of an Engineering Materials Arresting System (“EMAS”) on Runway End 24. EMAS is a synthetic
material designed to crack under the weight of an aircraft, helping to slow the aircraft if it overshoots the runway
in order to prevent it from overrunning the airfield completely. Additionally, the 2021 Airport Master Plan
proposes to re-grade land to the north of Runway 06-24 to achieve slope requirements outlined in FAA AC
150/5300-13A. These modifications would allow for an 800-foot runway extension to the east of the existing
runway. This extension would require an additional navigational lighting structure to the east of the current
navigational lighting and would likely require the County to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of
Palomar Airport to expand the airport’s footprint.
The City’s Previous Actions
Since its opening, Palomar Airport has been a topic of concern for many city residents due to the noise generated
by the aircraft using the airport and to the potential safety issues related to aircraft accidents. Additional concerns
have been raised over the County’s expressed interest in expanding Palomar Airport to accommodate more
diverse air traffic. In response, the city initiated several efforts to influence and manage the impacts of orderly
growth of Palomar Airport in various ways, including by issuing a conditional use permit, Planning Case No. CUP-
172, approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699, as a condition of annexing the airport, and by
rezoning the airport’s land to authorize airport-related uses. When the Planning Commission approved CUP-172
via Resolution No. 1699, it made CUP-172 subject to the condition that "[t]he existing designation of the airport
as a General Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this [Conditional Use
Permit] is approved by the Planning Commission.” In 1980, the voters proposed an initiative petition which was
adopted by the City Council as § 21.53.015, which states that an affirmative public vote is required before the City
Council can approve any legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion of Palomar Airport. In 1984, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 7530 to support the continued designation of Palomar Airport as a General
Aviation Airport and to declare that the City Council opposes any expansion of that airport. The County
subsequently sought and obtained an amendment to CUP-172 related to the use of three parcels as parking lots.
The amendment was approved on Nov. 3, 2004 as CUP-172(B).
In 2018, the city undertook a multifaceted initiative to address community concerns regarding Palomar Airport’s
expansion, including reviewing city laws, policies, rules, and regulations related to airport land uses. On Oct. 16,
2018, the City Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to its Zoning Ordinance to authorize airport-related
land uses only within the existing boundaries of Palomar Airport. Just prior to that City Council direction, on Oct.
10, 2018, the County Board certified a final PEIR and adopted an airport master plan update. C4FA responded by
filing suit against the County on Nov. 6, 2018, to challenge the County’s decision and the adequacy of the final
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 5 of 383
PEIR. On Dec. 6, 2018, the city filed its own lawsuit against the County, also challenging the adequacy of the final
PEIR. Following settlement discussions, the city and the County entered into a mutual cooperation and settlement
agreement on March 28, 2019. This agreement provided for cooperation between the city and County concerning
the airport master plan update, dismissal of the city’s lawsuit, and abandonment of the Zoning Ordinance
amendments. The City Council formally approved the agreement on May 7, 2019, through adoption of City Council
Resolution No. 2019-060. After the approval of the settlement agreement, the City Council approved two
resolutions on Sept. 19, 2019: City Council Resolution No. 2019-178 and City Council Resolution No. 2019-179.
Resolution No. 2019-178 formally opposed the County’s selected airport master plan update option, which would
have proposed extending Runway 06-24 by up to 800 feet. Resolution No. 2019-179 formally supported the airport
master plan update option that did not include a runway extension. Ultimately, the County complied with the
Court’s order (described above) and set aside all approvals associated with the airport master plan update on May
5, 2021. The County’s action effectively eliminated the need for the settlement agreement, so the City Council
voted to terminate the settlement agreement on Sept. 14, 2021 (City Council Resolution 2021-208).
On Dec. 17, 2019, the City Council adopted a minute motion, that in part, directed the City Manager and the City
Attorney to coordinate and bring back to the City Council a process the city would apply before approving any
acquisition of property within the city for any airport purpose. On Jan. 2, 2024, the city received a request from
the Chatten-Brown Law Group on behalf of C4FA to re-initiate amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to address
new and expanded airport land uses (Exhibit 6). C4FA also sought to collaborate with the city to clarify the city’s
code requirements and permit-review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses, in accordance with the
1978 agreement between the city and the County through which the city annexed Palomar Airport. (The Court
detailed that agreement in its minute order in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego.) The City
Council considered C4FA’s requests at its meeting on Feb. 27, 2024, and approved a motion directing staff to
evaluate C4FA’s requests and to present that evaluation to the City Council as a future agenda item for discussion.
On April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 2024-086) to authorize the
processing of code amendments. This staff report responds to the City Council’s Dec. 17, 2019, minute motion
and to City Council’s April 23, 2024 direction.
Purpose
In accordance with the 2021 Airport Master Plan, the County is planning to pursue near-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term actions (construction and capital projects) for ground-level facilities at Palomar Airport. The County
received conditional FAA approval of the ALPs based upon the 2021 Airport Master Plan on July 10, 2024 (Exhibit
7), which included a future ALP depicting a proposed 200-foot extension of Runway 06-24 (which extension the
County Board approved on Dec. 8, 2021) and a future ALP to depict a proposed maximum 800-foot extension of
Runway 06-24, which was not approved by the County Board on Dec. 8, 2021. The future ALP depicted in the
Airport Master Plan has not been finally approved by the FAA and does not reflect any final decision by the FAA
with respect to the future facilities or property lines depicted on that ALP.
The FAA generally requires a sponsor to ensure adequate runway protection zones and runway safety areas and
may direct it to acquire property interests to preclude incompatible land uses near the airport. However, the city
has the ultimate decision-making authority on land use matters within its jurisdiction, except to the extent that a
court were to find that such actions conflict with federal law or regulation. While the city has limited authority to
regulate aeronautical improvements within the airport’s existing boundaries, state law requires that the County
seek approval from the city to acquire land surrounding the airport boundary needed for airport purposes. Under
California law (Public Utilities Code § 21661.6), the acquisition of such property may not begin until (1) the County
submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the city, and (2) the city holds a public hearing on
the plan and subsequently approves that plan. Government Code § 65402 provides that the County cannot
purchase property within the city until the "location, purpose and extent of such acquisition … [has] been
submitted to and reported upon ... as to conformity" with the city's General Plan.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 6 of 383
The Project includes two components: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal
Program to specify and clarify code requirements and permit-review procedures for new and expanded airports,
and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code § 21661.6. The proposed amendments and
procedures have no effect on the continued operation of Palomar Airport as a General Aviation Airport; rather,
they specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures in the event of a proposal to
expand Palomar Airport. This will help provide for the orderly development of Palomar Airport while
simultaneously protecting the public health, safety, and welfare in the area surrounding the airport. To be clear,
while the County has prepared an Airport Master Plan and has received conditional FAA approval of an ALP
depicting future potential airport expansion, the County has neither submitted a proposal, nor received any final
approvals, to expand Palomar Airport.
Despite airports’ local economic benefits, airports can create impacts to the surrounding community. Likewise,
many land uses can cause direct or indirect impacts on the way airports grow and the safety of their operations.
Development around an airport, particularly in the approach and departure paths of aircraft, can create
obstructions to those aircraft. Additionally, certain land uses may attract wildlife or create hazards to aircraft, such
as a distracting glint or glare, smoke, steam, or invisible heat plumes.
Public Outreach & Comment
Public Outreach
The city issued several notices and advertised several public comment periods as part of the development of this
staff report and staff recommendation which are summarized below.
1) Feb. 27, 2024. The City Council provided direction to review and investigate the requests from C4FA, and
to bring back the resulting findings as a future agenda item for discussion. Notices of the Feb. 27, 2024
City Council meeting were made at the time and in the manner required by law. Written public comments
received related to the request are provided in Exhibit 8, which includes the original request from C4FA.
2) April 23, 2024. The City Council conducted a public meeting to consider the requests from C4FA and
initiated the code amendment work program. Notices of the April 23, 2024, City Council meeting were
made at the time and in the manner required by law. Written public comments received are provided in
Exhibit 8. The input (oral and written testimony) received during this phase served as the foundation for
developing the draft ordinance and resolutions.
3) May 20, 2024. Pursuant to Government Code § 65352, the city must refer proposed General Plan
amendments to certain entities such as regional and state agencies, including the County. Written public
comments received in response to the notification are provided in Exhibit 8.
4) May 20, 2024. Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (Government Code § 65352.3), which requires tribal
consultation, city staff mailed a project description to local tribes identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter
time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the
local government. The city submitted notification letters to 32 local tribes on May 20, 2024, which invited
those tribes to request consultations by Monday, Aug. 19, 2024. Two tribes, the San Pasqual Band of
Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, requested consultation or submitted comments
within the 90-day period. No other tribes responded to request formal consultation or provide comments
during the requisite 90-day notification period. City staff met with representatives from the San Pasqual
Band of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians and answered all of their questions. Those
tribes have expressed no other concerns. Tribal consultation has been completed.
5) May 21, 2024. Pursuant to the regulations of the California Coastal Commission (California Code of
Regulations §§ 13515 and 13552) regarding notification, public participation and agency coordination, city
staff mailed a Project description and Notice of Availability of Local Coastal Program Amendment to 30
members of the public, organizations, and agencies. This notice opened a six-week public-review period
that ran from May 21, 2024 to July 8, 2024. Written public comments received in response to the
notification are provided in Exhibit 8.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 7 of 383
6) May 24, 2024. The city published a legal advertisement of the Notice of Availability of Local Coastal
Program Amendment in the Coast News. Written public comments received in response to the legal
advertisement are provided in Exhibit 8.
7) May 29, 2024. In accordance with Public Utilities Code § 21676(b), the city referred the proposed Project
to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (“SDCRAA”), which also serves as the San Diego County
Airport Land Use Commission, to review the Project for consistency with the 2011 McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (the “ALUCP”). SDCRAA reviewed the proposed code amendments on
July 11, 2024. Notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law.
City staff attended the meeting and answered questions from the SDCRAA commissioners. Written public
comments received by the city in response to the SDCRAA meeting are provided in Exhibit 8.
For the Planning Commission meeting of Oct. 16, 2024, notice was sent by e-mail to all interested parties that
receive constant contact notifications. Legal public notice was posted in accordance with state law. The objective
of the Oct. 16, 2024 meeting is for the Planning Commission to review city staff’s recommendation, receive all
written correspondences received to date (Exhibit 8), hear new public comment, discuss the proposed Project,
and ultimately provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Public Comments
The city received public comment letters during the course of developing the draft ordinance(s)/resolution(s),
which includes the Project’s full timeline, from initiation up to the publication of this report (April 23, 2024,
through noon, Oct. 9, 2024). Those public comments generally express concerns about (1) federal preemption of
city ordinances and resolutions, (2) state-law preemption of those same city actions, (3) the need to amend CUP-
172, and (4) how to define “airport expansion.” The original comment letters are attached in Exhibit 8.
Response: The purpose of this Project is not to conflict with FAA requirements, but to act in accordance with those
FAA requirements to promote public health, safety, and welfare. While federal preemption applies to airspace
management and flight safety, it does not preempt the city’s regulatory authority or control over the land outside
of and surrounding an airport. Because the FAA does not have the land use authority to regulate off-airport land
uses, and because land-use decisions are often made at the local level, the city is responsible for regulating local
land uses beyond Palomar Airport’s existing boundaries. Whereas, in the past, there may have been a question
regarding whether a particular airport-related land use was permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited, the
proposed Project specifies and clarifies the city’s code requirements and permit-review procedures for new or
expanded airport land uses for the areas of land outside of an existing airport boundary. The proposed code
amendments and procedures, including new definitions added, are proposed pursuant to the authority granted
by state law (Government Code § 65800) and shall not be interpreted or enforced in any manner that violates that
authority.
Project Analysis
Consistency with Federal Law
The proposed Project’s compliance with relevant provisions of federal law is described in Exhibit 5, Project
Analysis.
Consistency with State Law
The proposed Project’s compliance with relevant provisions of state law is described in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
Consistency with the General Plan
The City of Carlsbad General Plan includes goals and policies that guide development and land use within the city.
A discussion of how the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies is
summarized in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
Consistency with the Municipal Code
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 8 of 383
The CMC, most notably Title 21, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within
the city, consistent with the General Plan. The proposed Project’s compliance with relevant provisions of the CMC
is described in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
Consistency with the Local Coastal Program
The proposed Project applies citywide and is applicable to all sections of the city’s Coastal Zone. The Project
complies with the Local Coastal Program as further discussed in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
Amendments to the Local Coastal Program (including the portion of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments in Coastal Zone areas) require approval of a Local Coastal Program amendment by the California
Coastal Commission. Local agencies with approved local coastal programs may amend a certified local coastal
program, but such amendments do not take effect in the Coastal Zone until they have been certified by the
California Coastal Commission. Since the lands or areas within and immediately surrounding Palomar Airport are
not located within the Coastal Zone, the General Plan amendment would become effective the next business day
following adoption, and the Zoning Ordinance would become effective 30 days after adoption.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The proposed Project is consistent with the ALUCP on the basis that amendments and procedures do not
materially affect allowable land uses or development standards within Palomar Airport and do not have
implications for ALUCP noise, airspace, or safety compatibility. A discussion of how the Project is consistent with
the ALUCP is summarized in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
Discretionary Actions & Findings
The amendments require approval of certain legislative changes (Zoning Ordinance amendment and Local Costal
Program amendment), which are discussed below.
General Plan Amendment (GPA 2024-0001)
The Project proposes various amendments (additions) to policy 2-P.39 of the Land Use Element portion
of the General Plan. The proposed additions retain the existing language of policy 2-P.39 but add
definitions of “airport” and “airport expansion” and specify that “airport”-related uses are only permitted
within the current boundary of the airport. The designated size, area, or degree of Palomar Airport, as
designated on the city’s General Plan Maps, does not change. The proposed General Plan amendment
further specifies that the city is opposed to any changes to Palomar Airport that would increase the land
area of the airport, other than institution of the B-II Enhanced Alternative.
The General Plan Land Use Element sets forth a comprehensive, citywide long-range growth strategy and
defines citywide policies regarding growth and capacity, land use, housing, urban form, neighborhood
design, economic development, and other priorities, which are municipal affairs. The City Council is
authorized by state law to adopt and, from time to time, amend, the General Plan governing the physical
development of the City of Carlsbad (Government Code §§ 65300 et seq.). The City Council may amend
the General Plan in its entirety, by subject elements or parts of subject elements. No legislative findings
are required to amend the General Plan. Further analysis of the content and purpose of each proposed
amendment is detailed in Exhibit 5, Project Analysis.
State law requires that the General Plan have internal consistency among its elements (Government Code
§ 65300.5). The updated Land Use Element must be consistent with the other elements and components
of the General Plan. Neither state law nor local law (e.g., the CMC) requires the city to adopt consistency
findings or any other findings to amend a General Plan element; however, the consistency discussion
provided in Exhibit 5 is provided for the Planning Commission’s consideration in approving and
recommending the proposed Project and its determination that the proposed Project is consistent with
the city’s General Plan.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 9 of 383
The staff report recommendation includes proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Local
Coastal Program to ensure internal consistency of the city’s policy and regulatory framework following
adoption of this General Plan amendment.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZCA 2024-0003)
The City Council is taking a number of actions in furtherance of the proposed Project. The proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendment adds § 21.04.024 to define “airport” and amends § 21.04.140.1 define “airport
expansion.” The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment amends various zoning tables to remove
“airport” as permissible uses and continues to allow “airport”-related use by issuance of a new or
amended conditional use permit in the Industrial (M) Zone and Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone, subject to
City Council approval. The property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport as depicted in the city
Zoning Map would continue to allow for “airport”-related uses. The designated size, area, or degree of
the mapped airport, as designated on the city’s Zoning Maps, does not change.
California law authorizes cities and counties to adopt zoning regulations and to exercise the maximum
degree of control over local zoning matters (Government Code § 65800). The city’s Zoning Ordinance
implements the policies of the General Plan by regulating the distribution and intensity of land uses in
such categories as residential, commercial, and industrial. The City Council may use its regulatory
authority to adopt ordinances to strike out language, insert or add new language, or replace language in
ordinances. Because the city is a Charter City, no legislative findings are required to amend the Zoning
Ordinance. Further analysis of the content and purpose of each proposed amendment is detailed in Exhibit
5, Project Analysis.
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 2024-0021)
The Coastal Act requires that local governments develop Local Coastal Programs that can carry out policies
of the California Coastal Act at the local level. Local Coastal Programs are planning documents that lay out
a framework for development and coastal resource protection within a city or county’s Coastal Zone area.
They are prepared by the local jurisdiction and submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. Each
Local Coastal Program includes a Land Use Plan which contains policies, and an Implementation Plan
which includes accompanying measures to implement the plan (such as a Zoning Ordinances or Zoning
Map). Where a project necessitates an amendment to a certified Land Use Plan portion of a Local Coastal
Program, the standard of review for the changes is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act (Public
Resources Code §§ 30000 et seq.). Where a project necessitates an amendment to an Implementation
Plan portion of a Local Coastal Program, the standard of review for proposed changes is that the proposed
amendment conforms with and is adequate to implement provisions of the Land Use Plan or the Local
Coastal Program. This Project involves amendments to the city’s Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance apply citywide, including to
portions of the city within the Coastal Zone, and therefore requires a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
Further analysis of the content and purpose of each proposed amendment is detailed in Exhibit 5, Project
Analysis. The six-week Local Coastal Program Amendment notice was publicly posted on May 20, 2024
and advertised in the newspaper on May 24, 2024. The public review period ended on July 8, 2024, prior
to which the public had the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Project. Within the Coastal
Zone, the City Council's approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program does not become
effective until the amendment is approved by the California Coastal Commission, pursuant to Public
Resources Code § 30514.
Procedures (LCPA 2024-0021)
Procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating to the city’s role, review,
and approval of an airport expansion or enlargement plan, or where there is an acquisition of property
beyond the current boundaries of Palomar Airport, would provide for the orderly growth of Palomar
Airport and help the city make necessary findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21661.6.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 10 of 383
Adoption of procedures to implement Public Utilities Code § 21661.6 does not require Planning
Commission review. However, the procedures have been included in this agenda item because of their
relationship with the proposed code amendments. Further, review by the Planning Commission during a
public hearing would help facilitate additional public outreach and provide additional public-comment
opportunities that may support the development of the final ordinance(s)/resolution(s). The procedures
do not need to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission following adoption by the City Council.
If approved by the City Council, the procedures would become effective immediately after adoption.
A decision of the City Council to amend the General Plan is effective immediately after the City Council’s adoption
of the resolution. An amended Zoning Ordinance is typically effective on the 31st day following adoption (that is,
the second reading). Within the Coastal Zone, the City Council's approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal
Program would not become effective until the amendment is approved by the California Coastal Commission.
Since the Palomar Airport boundary is outside of the Coastal Zone, the city would be able to apply and enforce
any new policies, laws, rules, and regulations or other police-power measures as soon as the resolution(s) and
ordinance are procedurally effective in the manner provided by state law.
Environmental Review
In accordance with the City’s CEQA procedures and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15080–15097, a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”), State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (City Planning Case No. 2022-0007),
was certified as complete on Jan. 30, 2024, by the City Council for the Housing Element Implementation and Public
Safety Element Update. Pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary action in furtherance of a
project for which an EIR has been certified, the Lead Agency is required to review any changed circumstances or
new information to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines § 15162 require additional environmental review. City staff evaluated the proposed Project, and all
aspects of the changes, in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources
Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162. City staff concluded that the EIR fully analyzed and mitigated, where
feasible, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from revising the “original”
project, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or subsequent mitigated negative declaration is required. On that basis,
city staff has prepared an Addendum for the changes, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164. (The Addendum is
provided as an attachment to Exhibit 1).
The Addendum is appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164 because only minor changes and additions to
the Final EIR are necessary to address the project changes and no circumstances exist calling for the preparation
of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and § 15163. The proposed Addendum
concluded that there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is
undertaken that would require major revisions to the Final EIR. There is no new information of substantial
importance which was not known or could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified that shows
the proposed Project would have significant effects not discussed previously; a substantial increase in severity of
a previously identified significant impact; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that
would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects; or mitigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR which would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. The proposed Project would not result in new or more
severe impacts beyond those addressed in the Final EIR and would not meet any other standards requiring further
environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15163. No further analysis or environmental
documentation is required.
Conclusion
Amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program require Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council adoption. Considering the information above and in the referenced exhibits,
city staff found that the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan, CMC, Local
Coastal Program, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, there are no environmental issues associated
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 11 of 383
with the amendments. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions recommending
approval of the proposed Project as described within this staff report.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council will be accompanied by a complete report of the
Planning Commission’s action prepared by the Community Development Department, including a summary of the
public hearing, its findings, and a copy of the resolutions, minutes, and any other pertinent material or information
that will assist the City Council in making its final determination on the matter.
Exhibits
1. Planning Commission Resolution (CEQA)
2. Planning Commission Resolution (GPA/ZCA/LCPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution (Procedures)
4. Draft Code Amendments (Strikeout/Underline)
5. Project Analysis
6. Chatten-Brown Law Group Letter to Initiate Code Amendments, dated Jan. 2, 2024
7. ALP Approval Letter, dated July 10, 2024
8. Public Comments
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 12 of 383
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.7524
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
SECOND ADDENDUM TO A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS PREVIOUSLY ADDENDED
FOR: (1) AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR NEW AND
EXPANDED AIRPORT USES; AND (2) PROCEDURES FOR NOTICING,
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW, AND OTHER MATTERS WHERE THERE IS
COUNTY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BEYOND THE CURRENT
BOUNDARIES OF THE AIRPORT.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED
AIRPORT LAND USES EIA
2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding: (1)
amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element ("General Plan"), Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance"), and Local Coastal Program for new and expanded
airport airports; and (2) procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is
acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport ("Procedures") hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Project;" and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004 (City
Planning Case No. EIR 13-02), was prepared and the City Council certified it as complete by City Council
Resolution No. 2015-242 on Sept. 22, 2015, for the General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the first addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the 2020 Climate Action
Plan Update and adopted on insert date; and
WHEREAS, the second addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Housing Element
Update 2021-2029, and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the third addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Jefferson Mixed Use:
Townhome and Professional Office Project, and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-256 on
Nov. 8, 2022; and
Exhibit 1
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 13 of 383
WHEREAS, in connection with an update to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design
Element, the General Plan Safety Element, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and the Local Coastal
Program for implementing a Housing Element rezone program, the City prepared a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”), State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (City Planning Case No. EIR
2022-0007) to supplement EIR 13-02. On Jan. 30, 2024, the City Council certified the SEIR and adopted a
Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public
Resources Code §§21000 et seq., and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, §§15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the city is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with
the principal responsibility for approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum / Initial Study (“IS”) Checklist was prepared in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines §15063 and §15162 to evaluate the Project and to determine whether the environmental
effects of the later activity is within the scope of the previously prepared EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a
project for which an EIR has been certified, the Lead Agency is required to review any changed
circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code §21166 and
CEQA Guidelines §15162 require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed modifications to the
Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code
§21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162; and
WHEREAS, based on this evaluation, staff concluded that the Final SEIR had fully analyzed and
mitigated, where feasible, in compliance with CEQA, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 14 of 383
any, that would result from the Project modifications, that the impacts to the environment as a result of
the modifications are consistent with and would not create substantial new or increased impacts beyond
those that were evaluated in the Final SEIR, and that, therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative
declaration is now required; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed modifications, and to document staff’s evaluation of the
environmental impact of said modifications, staff prepared Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15164; and
WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the Planning Commission on Oct. 16, 2024 to
consider recommending adoption of the Project. The public notice consisted of (1) that the project is
within the scope of the program approved earlier; and (2) the certified SEIR adequately describes the
proposed Project for the purposes of CEQA. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning
Commission, including, without limitation:
1. Written information including all application materials and other written and graphical
information,
2. Oral testimony from city staff, interested parties, and the public,
3. The Oct. 16, 2024 Planning Commission staff report, which along with its attachments, is
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein,
4. Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, examining Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR (Attachment A), on file in
the Planning Division and incorporated by this reference, and analyzing the information submitted by city
staff and considering any written and oral comments received, said Commission considered all factors
relating to EIR 13-02, EIR 2022-0007, and related addenda; and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 15 of 383
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision
includes, but is not limited to: (1) EIR 13-02, EIR 2022-0007, and related addenda, and any appendices and
technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff
reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to
Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and the Project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other
determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs,
plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with Addendum No. 2 to the
SEIR and the Project itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings,
or hearings or submitted to the city during the comment period relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR
and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the Project itself; (7) all other matters of common
knowledge to the to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules,
regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding
areas; and
WHEREAS, the city staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly
drafted this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the
understanding that this information is complete, true, and accurate.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record before it,
which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to
be complete, true, accurate, and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Compliance with CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines § 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary,
but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are present. The Planning
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 16 of 383
Commission has reviewed and considered EIR 13-02, EIR 2022-0007, and related addenda and
finds that those documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all of
the environmental impacts associated with the revised Project. The Planning Commission further
finds that the SEIR, Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR, and administrative record have been completed
in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, and that the findings related to the SEIR and
Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR, taken together, reflect the Planning Commission’s independent
judgment. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in
the Addendum, which is attached hereto as Attachment A, none of the conditions described in
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 or 15163 calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically:
A. The proposed modifications to the project do not create substantial changes that would
require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; and
B. The proposed modifications to the project do not create substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major
revisions of the previous SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
and
C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SEIR was
certified as complete and adopted, that shows any of the following:
i. The modifications will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
certified SEIR;
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 17 of 383
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the certified SEIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the Applicant declines to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative;
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the Applicant declines to adopt the mitigation
measure or alterative; and
v. The evaluation of the proposed modifications to the project, certified SEIR, and
Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR reflect the Planning Commission’s independent
judgment and analysis based on review of the entirety of the administrative
record, which record provides the information upon which this resolution is
based.
D. Pursuant to the above findings, the Planning Commission determines that the SEIR,
together with the Addendum, satisfy all the requirements of CEQA and is adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project and, therefore
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR for the Project (Attachment
A).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 18 of 383
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad, California, held on Oct. 16, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Kamenjarin, Danna, Hubinger, Lafferty, Meenes, Stine
NAYES: Merz
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MIKE STRONG
Assistant Director, Community Development
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 19 of 383
City of Carlsbad
Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element
Implementation and Public Safety Element
Update Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the Code Amendments for New and
Expanded Airports and Procedures to Implement
Public Utilities Code §21661.6
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attachement A
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 20 of 383
(i) .
.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... iii
1 Introduction and Project Summary ........................................................................................................... 1
Project Title .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................................................... 1
Contact Person and Phone Number ..................................................................................................................... 1
Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................................................. 1
Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2 Project Context ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3 Overview of the CEQA Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 8
4 Environmental Effects and Determinations ........................................................................................... 10
5 Addendum Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 11
6 Addendum Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 16
7 References ............................................................................................................................................. 88
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity ............................................................................... 2
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 21 of 383
This page intentionally left blank.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 22 of 383
Executive Summary
The proposed Project consists of two parts. The Project includes proposed amendments to the General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify the City of Carlsbad’s code
requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport. The proposed Project also
consists of new procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is
acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. When used
in relation to the Addendum, the terms “Project” and “proposed Project” are interchangeable and
refer to both parts.
The proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources
Code §§21000 et seq., and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
§§15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). Pursuant to CEQA, the city is the Lead Agency for the Project, as
the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the Project.
CEQA Guidelines §15160 explains that there are several mechanisms, and variations in environmental
documents, that can be tailored to different situations and intended uses of environmental review.
Specifically, GEQ Guidelines §15160 states that the “… variations listed [including Subsequent EIRs,
Supplemental EIRs, and addendums] are not exclusive. Lead Agencies may use other variations
consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances.” This provision allows Lead
Agencies to tailor the use of CEQA mechanisms (such as an addendum) to fit the circumstances
presented to the Lead Agency by a project.
In considering the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, the city has determined
that the EIR certified for the 2015 General Plan Update (General Plan & Climate Action Plan
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004, dated June 2015), SEIR certified
for the 2023 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Housing Element
Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State
Clearinghouse No. 2022090339, dated July 2023), and related addenda, are of continuing
informational value. Further, inasmuch as the proposed Project would reflect a change to the original
“project” that was analyzed in the Previous CEQA Documents, the analysis shows that these changes
would not result in a change to the approved EIR/SEIR. All of the impact issues previously examined in
the approved EIR/SEIR would remain unchanged with the proposed modifications. The changes
proposed are relatively minor and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or
result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects which would
call for, as provided in §15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
Therefore, this document’s analysis supports that an addendum to the approved EIR/SEIR is the
appropriate form of documentation to meet the statutory requirements of CEQA.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 23 of 383
This page intentionally left blank.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 24 of 383
1 Introduction and Project Summary
Project Title
Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code
§21161.
The code amendments and procedures, together, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“Project” or “proposed Project.”
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Contact Person and Phone Number
Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development, 442-339-2721.
Project Location
The City of Carlsbad encompasses approximately 39 square miles of land in northwest San Diego
County and is surrounded by Oceanside to the north, Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated areas of
San Diego County to the east, Encinitas to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Along
Carlsbad’s northern edge, urban development abuts Highway 78, with the roadway and Buena Vista
Lagoon acting as a boundary between Carlsbad and Oceanside. Similarly, Batiquitos Lagoon, along the
city’s southern edge, acts as a boundary between Carlsbad and Encinitas. To the east, boundaries are
less distinct, as a mix of hillsides and urban development are adjacent to Vista, San Marcos, and
unincorporated County lands. Since the proposed Project involves specifying and clarifying the city’s
code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airports, the Project’s planning
boundary is the Carlsbad city limits, which is depicted on Figure 1. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is
the only airport in the city’s limits. The airport is owned and operated by the County of San Diego and
located north of Palomar Airport Road between College Avenue and El Camino Real.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 25 of 383
Figure 1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 26 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
• --, City of Carlsbad r.:_. . _:__ ___ l City Limits [ ___ _
0 1.5
7 in= 2.9ml
• n Base Esn Ocea8 GIS 001 2021013
3
Miles
San Marcos
c-'l..r.r
-<'
i-
_j
( • " I \. ·,
n.J i
Turner
Background
California has a diverse variety of airport types, ranging from large hub commercial airports to small,
privately owned airstrips. Additionally, California supports many facilities in a wide range of categories.
Although commercial service airports handle most of the public’s air travel needs, the most common
type of airport in California is the General Aviation Airport. General Aviation Airports offer a wide
variety of services, ranging from flight instruction, recreation, air cargo, emergency medical
transportation, law enforcement, and firefighting operations.
There are a lot of considerations that go into the storage, maintenance, and operation of aircraft –
from aviation demand forecasts, airfield requirements, gate and terminal space requirements, airline
support facilities, and surface transportation requirements. This includes but is not limited to runway
and taxiway design, passenger terminals, hangars, aprons, parking facilities, etc. To identify future
construction and capital infrastructure needs, airport proprietors will often prepare airport master
plans to identify existing airside (runway and taxiway system, etc.) and landside (terminal and hangars,
etc.) facilities, evaluate what facilities are needed in the future to what is currently available, and
recommend future construction and capital projects. An airport master plan is a comprehensive study
of the airport and typically describes short-, medium-, and long-term plans for airport development.
Performing regular airport master plan updates on a regular basis helps the airport proprietor meet
the changes emerging in the aviation industry and the future development requirements these
changes may create.
The analysis of various airside and landside functional areas are typically performed with the guidance
of several Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) publications, including non-regulatory Advisory
Circulars (“AC”) 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, 150/5300-13, Airport Design, and Order
5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (“NPIAS”). These
guidelines should be regarded as general planning tools with development tied to aviation activity
levels.
Palomar Airport Background
The Palomar Airport was opened in 1959 by the County after being relocated from Del Mar due to the
construction of Interstate 5 (“I-5”). When it was constructed, the area was mainly dominated by
agricultural uses, and as surrounding areas developed the Palomar Airport property became part of a
larger unincorporated island completely surrounded by the city. Palomar Airport was annexed to the
City of Carlsbad (“City”) by the San Diego Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) on Sept. 11,
1978. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 5637 and ordered the airport annexed on Dec. 19, 1978.
In order to comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code, the Local Area Formation
Commission (“LAFCO”) required an appropriate zoning designation be placed upon the airport
property and for the County to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the city (LAFCO Annexation Case
No. CA77-50). Since then, the city’s General Plan Maps and Zoning Maps have continuously shown the
precise boundary of Palomar Airport. The Palomar Airport has a Public (P) General Plan land use
designation and is zoned Industrial (M) pursuant to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (“CMC”) Zoning
Ordinance (Title 21, Section 21.34).
Federal policies categorize airports by type of activities, including “Commercial Service Airports,”
“Cargo Service Airports,” “Reliever Airports,” and “General Aviation Airports.” A General Aviation
Airport is a public-use airport that does not have scheduled services or has scheduled service with less
than 2,500 passenger boardings (enplanements) each year (49 U.S.C. §47102(8)). At the time of the
Palomar Airport’s annexation into the city, the airport was classified as a “General Aviation Airport” by
the FAA. And when the Planning Commission approved CUP-172 (Resolution No. 1699) it was subject
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 27 of 383
to the condition that "[t]he existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport
Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this [Conditional Use Permit] is approved by the
Planning Commission.” The city’s land uses and zoning districts have been predicated upon the
continued operation of the airport as a General Aviation Airport as it was designated since the time of
annexation.
Project Initiation
On Dec. 17, 2019, a minute motion was made by the City Council that directed the City Manager and
the City Attorney to coordinate and bring back to the City Council specific procedures outlining a
process the city would apply and follow prior to the approval of the acquisition of property for any
airport purpose and where a vote of the people of Carlsbad would fit into that process.
On April 23, 2024, the city Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 2024-086,) to
authorize the processing of code amendment applications to specify and clarify the city’s code
requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses.
Project Description
The Project includes two components: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local
Coastal Program; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.
Amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program
Pursuant to the authority of Government Code §§65100 et seq., 65350 et seq., and 65850 et seq.;
Coastal Act §§30510 through 30514; and §§13551 through 13555 of the Commission’s regulations,
contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, said verified application in its entirety
constitute amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element (“General
Plan”), Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), and Local Coastal Program (the
main land use document for coastal area development and natural resource protection).
Amendments to the General Plan propose the following:
1) Specify as a policy statement city opposition to any changes to the Palomar Airport that would
increase the impacts of the airport on neighboring communities.
2) Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
3) Require new or expanded “airport” land uses to obtain a new or amended Conditional Use
Permit.
4) Permit “airport” development only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance amendments propose the following:
5) Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
6) Permit “airport” land uses only by issuance of a new or amended Conditional Use Permit.
7) Amend the zoning tables to remove “airport” as permissible land uses, such that only the
property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport as depicted in the city zoning map
would remain as permissible for “airport” land uses.
Procedures
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 28 of 383
Under California law (Public Utilities Code §21661.6) the acquisition of the property may not begin
until: (1) the County submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the city; and (2) the
city holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan. Because implementation
of the 2021 PAMPU could result in a proposal to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of
the Palomar Airport (and those properties are located within the limits of the city), the city has
determined that it is necessary to adopt procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and
other matters relating the city’s role, review, and approval an airport expansion or enlargement plan
or where there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, including
necessary findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21661.6.
Discretionary Actions
The Project would require the following discretionary actions by the City Council:
• Approval of Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety
Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report;
• Adoption of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal
Program; and
• Adoption of procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.
Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The location and custodian of the EIR certified for the 2015 General Plan Update (General Plan &
Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004, dated June
2015), SEIR certified for the 2023 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
(Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339, dated July 2023), and related addenda are with
the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 29 of 383
2 Project Context
The following provides a timeline of related environmental documentation that has been previously
prepared to support the environmental clearances for the Project.
On September 22, 2015, the City of Carlsbad certified a Final EIR for a comprehensive update to the
General Plan and a Climate Action Plan (General Plan & Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact
Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2011011004, City Planning Case No. EIR 13-02) (City of Carlsbad
2015). The certified EIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect
impacts) associated with future development allowed under the General Plan Update and included a
thorough analysis of the estimated build out of the city through the horizon year 2035. The EIR found
that, with implementation of the policies and programs contained in the General Plan and
recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with future
development under the General Plan update would be less than significant, except impacts on Air
Quality and Transportation which would be significant and unavoidable.
On July 14, 2020, the City Council approved CAP Amendment No. 1 to revise the GHG inventory and
reduction targets and forecast, update reductions from existing measures and incorporate community
choice energy as a new reduction measure. Addendum No. 1 to the 2015 General Plan Update and CAP
EIR was prepared in May 2020 for EIR 13-02 to support updates to the certified CAP (“CAP Amendment
No. 1”) (City of Carlsbad 2020). The Addendum concluded that CAP Amendment No. 1 did not constitute
a substantial change in the project or circumstances involving significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The mitigation measures previously
included and remaining in the CAP, and the CCE implementation measure remained feasible. Therefore,
CAP Amendment No. 1 did not necessitate a subsequent EIR because it did not create any of the
situations contained in State CEQA Guidelines §15162.
Addendum No. 2 to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Housing Element Update 2021-2029 and
was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6, 2021 (City of Carlsbad 2021). The
Addendum. The Addendum found that, with implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts
(direct and indirect) associated with the Housing Element did not identify any changes in the Project
(2015 General Plan), changes in circumstance, and/or any new information of substantial importance
that would cause significant effects to environmental resources. Addendum No. 2 determined that the
2015 General Plan EIR was of continuing informational value, the changes in the 2021 Housing Element
Update were within the scope of that previously certified EIR, and none of the conditions requiring the
preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15162
existed.
Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Jefferson Mixed Use: Townhome and
Professional Office Project was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-256 on Nov. 8, 2022 (City
of Carlsbad 2022). The project consisted of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to
support four residential air-space condominium units and a detached, approximately 897-square-foot
office building. The Addendum concluded that the land use development project did not constitute a
substantial change in the project or circumstances involving significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Therefore, Housing Element Update
2021-2029 did not necessitate a subsequent EIR because it did not create any of the situations contained
in State CEQA Guidelines §15162.
In connection with an update to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, the
General Plan Safety Element, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and the Local Coastal Program
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 30 of 383
for implementing a Housing Element rezone program, the city prepared a Final SEIR, State
Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (City Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007) to supplement EIR 13-02. On
January 30, 2024, the City Council certified the SEIR and adopted a Statement of Findings of Fact, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City of
Carlsbad 2024). The certified SEIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and
indirect impacts) associated with the development of housing on 18 sites as part of the Housing Element
implementation. The SEIR identified updates to the Carlsbad General Plan, specifically the Land Use and
Community Design Element, to allow for this development. The Public Safety Element would also be
updated to ensure consistency with State regulations. Updates to the Land Use and Community Design
Element included the addition of two new residential land use designations (R-35 and R-40) for the
accommodation of higher density residential development, establishment of revised minimum
densities for some residential designations, miscellaneous, related changes to tables, text and policies,
and changes to land use designations on multiple sites to accommodate the city’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) share. Updates to the Public Safety Element included the addition of the
requirements of new State legislation and the incorporation of new policies based on local and regional
data. The SEIR found that, with implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect)
associated with the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update would be less
than significant, except impacts on Air Quality, GHG, Noise, and Transportation which would be
significant and unavoidable.
Addendum No. 1 to the Final SEIR 2022-0007 was prepared for the 2024 Climate Action Plan Update
and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. [pending City Council decision - insert no.] on [insert
date] (City of Carlsbad 2024). The changes proposed with the project were relatively minor and would
not result in any new significant environmental impacts. Addendum No. 1 to Final SEIR 2022-0007
determined that none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental
environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15162 existed.
This Second Addendum to the Final SEIR 2022-0007 (“Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR”) evaluates
two components: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and
(2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161. These modifications to ordinances
and policies and procedures are described in more detail in Section 1. The Addendum No. 2 to the Final
SEIR will describe the effects of the change to the Project on the environmental setting, impacts, and
mitigation measures.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 31 of 383
3 Overview of the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15160 of the CEQA Guidelines explains that there are several mechanisms, and variations in
environmental documents, that can be tailored to different situations and intended uses of
environmental review. Specifically, §15160 states that the “…variations listed [including Subsequent
EIRs, Supplemental EIRs, and addendums] are not exclusive. Lead agencies may use other variations
consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances.” This provision allows Lead
agencies to tailor the use of CEQA mechanisms (such as this addendum) to fit the circumstances
presented to the lead agency by a project. Here, the city has opted to prepare an addendum to assess
the minor modifications of the Project that have transpired since preparation of the EIR.
Public Resources Code §21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines §§15162
and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental
documentation, if any, to be completed when changes are proposed to a project that has a previously
certified EIR. When considering the need for additional environmental review, the fundamental
determination a lead agency must make is whether the previously certified EIR retains some
informational value or whether changes in the project or circumstances have rendered it wholly
irrelevant. If the previously certified EIR has continuing informational value, the lead agency then must
determine whether the proposed changes in the Project require additional environmental review
under Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162.
CEQA Guidelines §15164 states that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling
for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) states that no
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead
agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects.
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 32 of 383
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The analysis pursuant to §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines demonstrates whether the lead agency can
approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the
existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be
required. The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the final EIR/SEIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR/EIR prior
to taking an action on the Project.
The city has prepared this Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164, to evaluate
whether the proposed Project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report – State Clearinghouse Number 2022090339 (Final SEIR 2022-0007). The following
addendum details any changes in the original “project,” changes in circumstances under which the
original “project” is undertaken, and/or “new information of substantial importance” that may cause
one or more significant effects to environmental resources.
The responses herein substantiate and support the city’s determination that the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project are within the scope of the final EIR/SEIR, and do not
require subsequent or supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code §21166 and
§15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and, in conjunction with the SEIR, preparation of an addendum
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164 is appropriate.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 33 of 383
4 Environmental Effects and Determinations
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to
be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in
Project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the
checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ NONE
□ Aesthetics □ Air Quality □ Biological Resources
□ Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Climate Change
□ Geology, Soils,
and Seismicity
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Airport Safety, and
Wildfires
□ Historical, Archaeological, and
Paleontological Resources (includes
Tribal Cultural Resources)
□ Hydrology and
Flooding
/Water Quality
□ Land Use Planning, Housing,
and Population
□ Noise □ Public Facilities
and Services
□ Utilities and Service Systems
□ Transportation □ Agriculture &
Forestry
Resources
□ Impacts Not Potentially
Significant: Mineral
Resources
Determination
Based on this analysis, the 2024 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
SEIR has continuing informational value and:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the original “project” or there are substantial changes in
the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions
to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new
information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3).
Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
■ No substantial changes are proposed in the original “project” and there are no substantial
changes in the circumstances under which the “project” will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also,
there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines §15162(a)(3). Therefore, the preparation of an Addendum to the previously
certified SEIR (City of Carlsbad, Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element
Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – State Clearinghouse Number
2022090339, dated July 2023) is adequate and appropriate.
Signature: _________________________________ Date: __________________________
Printed Name: ______________________________ Title: __________________________
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 34 of 383
5 Addendum Methodology
The city has previously prepared and certified an EIR for the 2015 General Plan, an Addendum for the
CAP Amendment (2020), an Addendum for the Housing Element (2021), an Addendum for the
Jefferson Mixed Use development project, a SEIR for the Housing Element Implementation and Public
Safety Element Update (2024), and an Addendum for the Climate Action Plan Update (2024).
Collectively, these CEQA reviews are known as the “Previous CEQA Documents.” No legal actions were
filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are presumed valid.
When only some changes or additions to a previously certified EIR/SEIR are necessary and none of the
conditions described in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling
for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met, CEQA allows the lead agency to
prepare and adopt an addendum. (CEQA Guidelines §15164(a).)
In general, adoption or amendment to ordinances and policies and procedures do not directly affect
the environment, as ordinances and policies and procedures are intended or developed to guide a
local government’s physical, social, and economic growth in the future. However, the lead agency
must take account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site impacts, cumulative
as well as project-level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, as well as construction and
operational impacts. The potential impacts of an adoption or amendment to ordinances and policies
and procedures are generally indirect, related to changes in future development patterns. Because of
the subject matter (new and expanded airports), impacts related to noise, safety, airspace protection,
and aircraft overflight must also be considered.
In conducting its environmental analysis of the proposed Project, and preparing Addendum No. 2 to
the Final SEIR, the city looked beyond what direct impacts could be attributable to the Project and also
considered how people might respond to the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures
for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport. Noise and safety are the two primary airport impact
concerns that have the potential to affect the health, safety, and welfare of people and property in
the vicinity of an airport and to people on board the aircraft. Safety impacts from aircraft accidents
near airports are typically handled by specifying the types of land uses and thus limiting the number
of people who would be exposed to the risk of an accident. The other major safety concern is related
to land uses that can create hazards to flight. Airspace protection primarily involves limitations on the
height of objects on the ground near airports. Additional flight hazards to be considered are activities
that can cause electronic or visual impairment to navigation or attract large numbers of birds. Thus,
among other things, this addendum evaluates the proposed Project’s indirect and cumulative
relationship with the following: (1) the intensity of non-residential development measured in terms of
the number of people concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents; (2) the density of
residential development measured in terms of dwelling units per acre; (3) development or expansion
of certain uses that represent special safety concerns regardless of the number of people present; and
(4) the extent to which development covers the ground and thus limits the options of where an aircraft
in distress can attempt an emergency landing. Therefore, as analyzed in more detail below, the
addendum evaluates whether the proposed Project would result in (1) substantial changes that
require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to circumstances, related to significant
effects, that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (3) new information of substantial importance
regarding worsened significant effects, mitigation measures or alternatives now found to be feasible;
or new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the EIR/SEIR.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 35 of 383
It is important to note that from a CEQA perspective, the character of the development of the Palomar
Airport or the land or areas surrounding the airport would remain the same by which was previously
contemplated by the city in its certification of the EIR/EIS. The 2021 PAMPU’s desired, long-term
outcome or result to extend the runway is not new information or pertinent to this document’s
assessment of the conditions to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
• The runway extension was first introduced by the airport proprietors in the 1975 Airport
Master Plan. The 1975 Airport Master Plan anticipated “unrestricted” demand to be
approximately 500,000 annual operations by the year 1990, but the “constrained” operations
at Palomar Airport were anticipated to level-off at 290,000 annual operations by 1995.
(“Unconstrained” or “unrestricted” demand refers to the demand that an airport would expect
without taking into account any physical, operational, or legal impediments to an aircraft
operator’s use of the airport. The “constrained” forecast of demand takes those airport-
specific conditions into account.) The unrestricted forecast for the number of aircraft based at
Palomar Airport was determined to be 786, but due to Palomar Airport’s limited space, it was
estimated that only 600 based aircraft could be accommodated. The 1975 Airport Master Plan
identified a number of improvements that would be needed to meet this anticipated growth.
Of the improvements recommended in the 1975 Airport Master Plan, the most significant
were construction of a new parallel runway and extension of the existing runway. The 1975
Airport Master Plan proposed extending the existing runway, Runway 06-24, to a landing
length of 5,100 feet; it proposed constructing a parallel runway of 3,600 feet to the north. The
County performed most of the construction and capital projects that the 1975 Airport Master
Plan proposed, but not the extension of Runway 06-24 or the construction of the parallel
runway.
• The County first updated the 1975 Airport Master Plan in 1997, when it adopted the 1997
Airport Master Plan. While the County determined that the orientation and location of Runway
06-24 met FAA standards, the 1997 Airport Master Plan stated that it was desirable to
construct additional runway capacity to meet Palomar Airport’s “unconstrained” forecast
demand and growing operations. The 1997 Airport Master Plan projected that, by 2015,
Palomar Airport would have approximately 610 based aircraft and approximately 260,000
annual aircraft operations. As a result, the 1997 Airport Master Plan identified several
improvements that would be desirable to meet this anticipated growth, including extending
the existing Runway 06-24 by 300 feet to the east. The 1997 Airport Master Plan indicated that
the actual need and specific timing for new facilities would be established by levels of aircraft
activity. However, the 1997 Airport Master Plan’s forecasted aviation activity has not been
realized, and the runway extension was never pursued during the planning period.
• The 2021 PAMPU anticipates that the Palomar Airport will have up to 12,410 air carrier
operations, 12,727 air taxi/commuter operations, 168,958 general aviation operations, and
955 military operations by 2036. This results in approximately 195,050 total operations and
304,673 total enplanements. The exact timing for implementation of airside and landside
construction and capital projects are not defined in the 2021 PAMPU because project-specific
information had not been fully developed. The 2021 Airport Master Plan calls for a runway
extension of 200 feet (+/-10%) now and adding an additional 600 feet in the future, beyond
the 200-foot extension (total runway length of 5,697). This alternative would also shift the
centerline of Runway 06-24 the runway 104 feet to the north. Final decisions on these projects
have not been made.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 36 of 383
All the foregoing (administrative record) predates the city’s certification of the Housing Element
Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Housing Element Implementation and Public
Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
2022090339, dated July 2023). Thus, the adoption of the 2021 PAMPU EIR and 2021 PAMPU carries no
new information or value of significance that was not previously contemplated by the city in its
certification of the 2024 SEIR.
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures
(Section 1) have been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original
“project,” circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. Based upon the environmental checklist prepared for the Project (Section 6), the
environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Project do not require additional
analysis beyond the analysis previously prepared and distributed in the Final EIR/EIS.
A. The proposed Project neither forbids nor authorizes a use or project/activity that could directly
alter the environment. The proposed Project does not directly authorize a use or
project/activity that could constitute hazards to people or property or aircraft in flight. The
proposed Project does not authorize a new building or structure and it does not increase the
number of people expected to occupy a non-residential or residential development in the
airport or in the lands or areas surrounding the airport. The proposed Project does not
construct, erect, or install tall structures, trees, and other objects near airports or on high
terrain. The proposed Project does not develop or construct a facility that represents special
safety concerns, attracts wildlife, causes visual impairment, or generates electronic
interference.
The legal provisions proposed in the Project are in the nature of a clarification of existing
ordinances; the Project’s intent is not to change the scope of city regulation. To the contrary,
the intent is to harmonize definitions in state law and city ordinances to ensure consistent
application of the law.
B. The proposed Project identified above is within the scope of the Previous CEQA Documents.
1. The EIR/EIS fully analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur from the city’s
cumulative build-out (site capacity, yield, sequence, and timing of public and private
land development projects/activities). There has been no change to the uniformity the
laws, policies, rules, and regulations that relate to future development patterns,
including but not limited how the city: (1) authorizes the review, design, and approval
of subdivisions; (2) requests dedications of public improvements; (3) collects related
permit or impact fees; or (4) how the city would otherwise require project-level
compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and
ALUCP. The designated size, area, or degree of the airport, as designated on the city’s
General Plan Maps and Zoning Maps, does not change by any measurable or
quantifiable dimension. The Palomar Airport continues to have a Public (P) General
Plan land use designation and is zoned Industrial (M) pursuant to the CMC.
2. The proposed Project does not regulate the permissible physical uses of land within
Palomar Airport (existing boundaries). Rather than applying the scope of the definition
to lands or areas within the existing Palomar Airport boundary, the proposed Project
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 37 of 383
would only apply to land outside of, and not currently part of, Palomar Airport.
The proposed Project encourages the continued operation of the Palomar Airport as
a General Aviation Airport, while specifying and clarifying the city’s code requirements
and permit review procedures for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport, without
interfering with any existing federal regulations. Nothing substantial, indirectly or
cumulatively, has changed with respect to the ’s land use safety compatibility planning
efforts and adopted ALUCP criteria to minimize the risks associated with impacts
related to noise, safety, airspace protection, and aircraft overflight. Nothing the city is
proposing would have an effect on aircraft operations, which could continue to rely
upon regulations enacted by the FAA and the State of California, as outlined in the
State Aeronautics Act. Furthermore, nothing has changed with respect to where the
EIR/SEIR assumed where the highest number of aircraft are arriving or departing,
where there would be proper safety and airspace protection, or where an off-airport
aircraft accident or emergency landing may occur.
3. Inasmuch as the revisions to the original “project” could be considered a change, for
the most part the proposed Project merely restates (rather than changing) existing law
and specifies and clarifies procedures, which must be followed prior to authorizing
new or expanded airport land uses/activities, and thus carries no potential for
resulting in a physical change in the environment. The only change is that the proposed
code amendments authorize airport-related uses only within the current boundary of
Palomar Airport and that the decision-making body to consider new or expanded
airport land uses shall be the City Council. The proposed Project does not significantly
change the intent of the use of the lands or areas surrounding the airport, as it was
originally contemplated in the EIR/SEIR. The addition of the targeted text amendments
and adoption of procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161 do not affect
the substance of the original “project” that was analyzed in the Previous CEQA
Documents, or the overall evaluation of city’s development potential for
projects/activities within the jurisdiction of the city.
C. In addition to changes in the original “project,” CEQA Guidelines §15162 states that no
subsequent EIR shall be required unless substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of
the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects. In this instant, the
environmental setting has not significantly changed since the original “project” was approved.
At the time of the adoption of the original “project,” the city’s laws, policies, rules, and
regulations provided a benchmark to govern development within the Palomar Airport and the
land or areas surrounding the airport. Development since that time in the surrounding
community has largely occurred in the fashion dictated under the laws, policies, rules, and
regulations, with the exception being that it has happened in a less-intensive manner than
originally forecasted. However, the environmental circumstances and relevant land use
regulations remain mostly the same or are too insubstantial in their effect to require
subsequent environmental review.
The potential actions that could be taken by people in response to or to comply with (1) the
amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; or (2) the
procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161, would be implemented in accordance
with local, state, and federal rules and regulations to protect surrounding communities from
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 38 of 383
adverse effects associated with airport operations, such as noise, safety hazards, and wildlife
interference. For the most part the proposed Project merely restates (rather than changing)
existing law, and thus carries no potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment. There is no change to the uniformity to the various laws, policies, rules, and
regulations that relate to future development patterns, including but not limited how the city:
(1) authorizes the review, design, and approval of subdivisions; (2) requests dedications of
public improvements; (3) collects related permit or impact fees; or (4) how the city would
otherwise require project-level compliance with its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local
Coastal Program, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. .
D. Finally, there is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could
not have been known at the time of the EIR/SEIR adoption that shows any of the following:
1. The proposed Project would result in a significant effect not discussed in the EIR/SEIR
(CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(A);
2. The proposed Project would substantially increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(B);
3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified, but
the city is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives (CEQA Guidelines
§15162(a)(3)(C); and
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the EIR/SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the city is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(D).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 39 of 383
6 Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic
highway?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 40 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR Significance
Conclusion
SEIR Mitigation
Measures
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve a New
or Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of Previously Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances Involving a
New or Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
Necessary or
Did None of the
Conditions
Described in §15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the Scope of the
SEIR?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the exiting visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day- or
nighttime views in the area?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 41 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Aesthetics Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for scenic vistas (AES-1), scenic resources within
scenic highways (AES-2), visual quality (AES-3), and light and glare (AES-4) (Section 4.1, Aesthetics).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for scenic vistas (AES-1), scenic resources within
scenic highways (AES-2), visual quality (AES-3), and light and glare (AES-4) (Section 4.1, Aesthetics).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as
equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving
roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic
signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as
previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to aesthetic conditions in the city.
Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land
development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. The proposed
Project would not result in new features of substantial height, bulk, or massing and implementation
of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects permitted or construction activities
that would have substantial adverse effects on existing scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 42 of 383
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to
aesthetics.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 43 of 383
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
statewide Importance, as shown
on maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 44 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR Significance
Conclusion
SEIR Mitigation
Measures
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve a New
or Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of Previously Identified
Impacts?
Are There New Circumstances
Involving a New or
Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
Necessary or
Did None of
the Conditions
Described in §15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the Scope of
the SEIR?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land, as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
e. Involve other changes in the exiting
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in the
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 45 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Agriculture and Forestry Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts for converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland); for conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract or with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g)); and for resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or
involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
(Section 4.16.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts for converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland); for conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract or with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g)); and for resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or
involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
(Section 4.16.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources). Implementation of the proposed Project would
not result in the conversion of Important Farmland or forest land to urban or other uses. There are
currently no Williamson Act contracts in the city and the CAP Update does not propose land use
changes that would affect the status of any Williamson Act contracts. Additionally, there are no areas
in the city zoned as forest or timberland, therefore, implementation of the proposed project would
not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning any forest land, timberland, or timber land zoned
for timberland production. Therefore, the Project would not involve other changes in the exiting
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 46 of 383
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to
agriculture and forestry resources.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 47 of 383
Air Quality
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
MM AQ-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
State ambient air quality
standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable MM AQ-2 No No No Yes Yes
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
Significant with Mitigation
MM AQ-3
MM AQ-4 No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 48 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Air Quality Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the
San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State Implementation Plan (AQ-1) with implementation of
mitigation measure AQ-1. The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure AQ-2 would
reduce operational emissions from future development, it would be speculative to quantify such
emissions until details of the individual projects are known and concluded impacts to be significant
and unavoidable (AQ-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to exposing
offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (AQ-3) with implementation of
mitigation measure AQ-3 and mitigation measure AQ-4. The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than
significant impact related to creating objectional odors (AQ-4) (Section 4.2, Air Quality).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the
San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State Implementation Plan (AQ-1) with implementation of
mitigation measure AQ-1. The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure AQ-2 would
reduce operational emissions from future development, it would be speculative to quantify such
emissions until details of the individual projects are known and concluded impacts to be significant
and unavoidable (AQ-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to exposing
offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (AQ-3) with implementation of
mitigation measure AQ-3 and mitigation measure AQ-4. The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than
significant impact related to creating objectional odors (AQ-4) (Section 4.2, Air Quality).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as
equipment use, construction of new facilities or retrofitting of existing facilities, would be similar in
impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to air
quality conditions in the city. Construction activities would be relatively small in scale, occur
intermittently in different locations throughout the city, last for only short periods of time, and would
not require substantial relocation of construction workers from areas outside of the city and the San
Diego region. Long-term changes would not result in the exceedance of SDAPCD thresholds and would
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 49 of 383
be considered consistent with the goals of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State
Implementation Plan. The proposed Project would not result in new emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.
Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 from the SEIR are not applicable to the air
quality impacts of the proposed Project. The Project would not result in any new or substantially more
severe significant impacts related to air quality. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The SEIR identified mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 for air quality impacts. None of these
mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 50 of 383
Biological Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2 No No No Yes Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 51 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR Significance
Conclusion
SEIR Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Changes Involve a New or Substantial
Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified
Impacts?
Are There New Circumstances Involving a New or Substantial
Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified
Impacts?
Is There New Information of Substantial
Importance Requiring New Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor Technical Changes or Additions Necessary or Did
None of the Conditions Described in §15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the Scope of
the SEIR?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4
MM BIO-5
No No No Yes Yes
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1 MM BIO-3 MM BIO-4 No No No Yes Yes
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
MM BIO-6 No No No Yes Yes
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1
MM BIO-2
MM BIO-3
MM BIO-4 MM BIO-7 MM BIO-8
No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 52 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Biological Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-1) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-
1 and BIO-2. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-2) with implementation
of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact
to State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
(BIO-3) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5. The 2024 SEIR
identified a less than significant impact to interfering substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites (BIO-4) with implementation of mitigation
measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to
conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance (BIO-5) with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. The 2024
SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plan (BIO-6) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2,
BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-7 and BIO-8 (Section 4.3, Biological Resources).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-1) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-
1 and BIO-2. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 53 of 383
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-2) with implementation
of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact
to State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
(BIO-3) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5. The 2024 SEIR
identified a less than significant impact to interfering substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites (BIO-4) with implementation of mitigation
measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to
conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance (BIO-5) with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. The 2024
SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plan (BIO-6) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2,
BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-7 and BIO-8 (Section 4.3, Biological Resources). Implementation of the proposed
Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur.
Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials,
ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping
pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping,
etc. and long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land
development projects would be of the same time and place as previously identified. Implementation
of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse direct or indirect effect to special-status
species. The proposed Project would not facilitate development in land or areas where riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, and protected
biological resources are present. The proposed Project would not result in physical improvements or
effects that would result in substantial long-term damage to biological resources.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The Project would not result in more significant impacts related to biological resources. None of these
mitigation measures are applicable to the Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 54 of 383
Cultural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Significant and
Unavoidable None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 55 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Cultural Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 and identified no feasible mitigation
measures (CUL-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 (CUL-2). The 2024 SEIR
also identified a less than significant impact for disturbing any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries (CUL-3) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 and identified no feasible mitigation
measures (CUL-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 (CUL-2). The 2024 SEIR
also identified a less than significant impact for disturbing any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries (CUL-3) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as
equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving
roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic
signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. and long-term changes such as improvements at or near
grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would be of the same time and place
as previously identified. The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines addresses treatment of cultural
resources to avoid substantial adverse effects should they be encountered during ground disturbance
activities. Therefore, with adherence to the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines, there would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5.
The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines Standard Treatment 11: Post-Review Discoveries section
addresses treatment of human remains should they be disturbed as a result of ground disturbing
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 56 of 383
activities. Moreover, human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have
specific provisions for treatment in Public Resources Code §5097. The California Health and Safety
Code (§§7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains.
Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them
from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be
implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code §5097.98 also
addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and provides for the
establishment of the NAHC to resolve any related disputes. All development projects are also subject
to State of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 which states that, if human remains are
unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings
as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to the Public Resources Code §5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the
Native American Heritage Commission which will determine and notify a most likely descendant
(“MLD”). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the
landowner within 48 hours of being granted access.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no feasible mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR to reduce impacts related to cultural
resources.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 57 of 383
Energy
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction and operation?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 58 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Energy Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation or for conflicts with or obstruction of a State or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Section 4.16.2, Energy).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation or for conflicts with or obstruction of a State or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Section 4.16.2, Energy). Implementation of the
proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction
may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging
of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting
or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing
landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be
short-term and temporary changes to energy conditions in the city. Long-term changes such as
improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also
be of the same time and place as previously identified. Where applicable, measures and actions
associated with the 2024 SEIR would be required to comply with CALGreen, the latest California
Building Code (“CBC”) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as all local,
state, and federal rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation. The
proposed Project doesn’t frustrate the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy renewable energy goals
and would not conflict with any applicable rule or regulation adopted regarding renewable energy or
energy efficiency.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 59 of 383
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to energy.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 60 of 383
Geology and Soils
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within
the Scope
of the
SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
iv. Landslides? Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 61 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New
Information of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur? (§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of the SEIR?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 62 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Geology and Soils Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (GEO-1); and for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking,
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides (GEO-2). The 2024 SEIR also
identified less than significant impacts for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (GEO-3) and for
on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on
expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (GEO-4). The 2024 SEIR
identified less than significant impacts for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater (GEO-5) and for the project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature (GEO-6) (Section 4.5, Geology and Soils).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (GEO-1); and for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking,
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides (GEO-2). The 2024 SEIR also
identified less than significant impacts for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (GEO-3) and for
on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on
expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (GEO-4). The 2024 SEIR
identified less than significant impacts for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater (GEO-5) and for the project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature (GEO-6) (Section 4.5, Geology and Soils). Implementation
of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where
construction may occur. The measures identified in the proposed Project do not propose new housing
nor do they propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential zoning. The
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 63 of 383
proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or result
in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction or landslides. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil or result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse, and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property.
Where applicable, short-term measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as
construction, equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing
pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying
concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact
(same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to geologic
conditions in the city. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing
roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously
identified. For measures and actions requiring ground disturbance in areas underlain by sensitive
geologic units, the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines require a review of primary literature and
online databases, a paleontological assessment of the project area (plus a one-mile radius) by the San
Diego Museum of Natural History, and a field survey to determine if paleontological resources or
potentially fossiliferous sediments are present (if the sensitive sediments are exposed at the surface).
The results of these analyses are used to create a Paleontological Assessment Report which will
provide recommendations to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources, if necessary. The Carlsbad
Cultural Resource Guidelines set forth mitigation measures. Additionally, General Plan policies 7-P.7
through 7-P.11 of the Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element would reduce impacts to
paleontological resources by implementing the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines; requiring
monitoring of ground-disturbing activities in areas known to contain paleontological resources; and
ensuring proper treatment and consultation of paleontological resources discovered during ground-
disturbing activities. With compliance with these guidelines and General Plan policies, implementation
of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 64 of 383
Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to geology
and soils.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 65 of 383
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 66 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Greenhouse Gas Emissions Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact for generating greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and for
conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG-1). It identifies Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the
preparation of this CAP Update to reduce the GHG emissions impacts identified in the 2024 SEIR
(Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact for generating greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and for
conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG-1). It identifies Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the
preparation of this CAP Update to reduce the GHG emissions impacts identified in the 2024 SEIR
(Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change
the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities
associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances,
removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying
curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be
similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary
changes to greenhouse gas conditions in the city. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near
grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and
place as previously identified. The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor would
implementation of the proposed Project conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of
reducing emissions.
Conclusion
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 67 of 383
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The Project would not result in more significant impacts related to biological resources. None of
these mitigation measures are applicable to the Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 68 of 383
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 69 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New
Information of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur? (§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of the SEIR?
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 70 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials (HAZ-1); emitting or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (HAZ-2); being located
on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment (HAZ-3); being
located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and
resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (HAZ-
4); and for impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan (HAZ-5) (Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials (HAZ-1); emitting or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (HAZ-2); being located
on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment (HAZ-3); being
located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and
resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (HAZ-
4); and for impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan (HAZ-5) (Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as
equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving
roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic
signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as
previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to hazardous conditions in the city.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 71 of 383
Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land
development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. Where
applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR that result in ground disturbance,
would be remediated to allowable regulatory levels in accordance with applicable county and state
regulations before any ground-disturbing activities are permitted to occur. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being
located on a hazardous materials site. The proposed Project would not result in new or relocated
residential land uses, other types of noise-sensitive receptors, or new places of permanent
employment where residents or workers could be exposed to a safety hazard or excessive noise near
the airport. Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose residents or workers to a safety
hazard or excessive noise levels.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 72 of 383
Hydrology and Water Quality
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 73 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR Significance
Conclusion
SEIR Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously Identified
Impacts?
Is There New Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in §15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the Scope of
the SEIR?
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation, on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 74 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There
New
Circumstances Involving a
New or
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 75 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the violation of water quality
standards, waste discharge requirements (WDR’s), or otherwise degradation of surface or ground
water quality (HYD-1); decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge
(HYD-2); altering the existing drainage patterns through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site, increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site, or creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
(HYD-3); impede or redirect flood flows or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation (HYD-4); conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (HYD-5) (Section 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the violation of water quality
standards, waste discharge requirements (“WDRs”), or otherwise degradation of surface or ground
water quality (HYD-1); decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge
(HYD-2); altering the existing drainage patterns through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site, increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site, or creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
(HYD-3); impede or redirect flood flows or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation (HYD-4); conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (HYD-5) (Section 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types
of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated
with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 76 of 383
existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs,
laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in
impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to
water conditions in the city. However, the ground disturbing activities would be temporary and
intermittent and would not involve the substantial use of groundwater or otherwise affect recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve development of
residential land uses or other types of land development or induce population growth in an area that
would increase water demand. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of
existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as
previously identified. Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR that
result in ground disturbance, would be addressed by existing local rules and regulations. The Carlsbad
Municipal Code requires BMPs to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater
runoff from new development and redevelopment projects as a requirement of the Municipal
Stormwater Permit. Furthermore, the city’s Low Impact Development Ordinance in Chapter 15.12
aims to specifically reduce the amount of surface runoff and aid in groundwater recharge through
techniques such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and additional
uses in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MS4 permit and the standards manual. The
proposed Project would not result in new or relocated residential land uses, alter the existing drainage
patterns or contribute runoff water in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or
flooding, nor would it exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to hydrology
and water quality.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 77 of 383
Land Use and Planning
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Physically divide an established
community? No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 78 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Land Use and Planning Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for physically dividing an established community (LU-1) and a less
than significant impact for conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation (LU-2) (Section 4.9,
Land Use and Planning).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for physically dividing an established community (LU-1) and a less
than significant impact for conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation (LU-2) (Section 4.9,
Land Use and Planning). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of
projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in physical improvements that could physically divide a community.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change existing land uses that are reflected in all
applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan,
Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the city’s 2015 General Plan (as amended city Council
Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6, 2021). Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause
a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, rule or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 79 of 383
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to land
use and planning.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 80 of 383
Mineral Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the
State?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Result in the loss of availability
of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 81 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Mineral Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan
(Section 4.16.3, Mineral Resources).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan
(Section 4.16.3, Mineral Resources). The city does not have mineral resources of economic value or
active mining sites, therefore the 2024 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 82 of 383
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to mineral
resources.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 83 of 383
Noise
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve a
New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a
New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP
Update:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Significant and
Unavoidable
(construction)
Less than
Significant
(operation)
MM NOI-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM NOI-2 No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 84 of 383
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 85 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Noise Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise
impacts for projects located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses, it conservatively concluded
impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to construction activities generating a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies (NOI-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to operational
activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies (NOI-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant
impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (NOI-
3) with implementation of mitigation measure NOI-2. The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than
significant impact related to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or (NOI-4) (Section 4.10, Noise).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise
impacts for projects located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses, it conservatively concluded
impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to construction activities generating a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies (NOI-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to operational
activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies (NOI-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant
impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (NOI-
3) with implementation of mitigation measure NOI-2. The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than
significant impact related to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or (NOI-4) (Section 4.10, Noise). Implementation of the proposed Project would not
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 86 of 383
change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction
activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground
disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping
pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping,
etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term
and temporary changes to noise conditions in the city. Where applicable, measures and actions
associated with the 2024 SEIR would be subject to existing city noise policies and regulations and
General Plan policies and programs, specifically those found in the Noise Element, and other local
polices and regulations pertaining to noise at any development site. Compliance with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) standards for worker safety would minimize exposure of
workers to excessive noise levels. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of
existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as
previously identified. Implementation of measures and actions included in the proposed Project would
not create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels or produce a new permanent source of noise,
and construction-related noise impacts would be reduced through enforcement of applicable city or
other noise policies. The proposed Project does not propose any new sensitive receptors (e.g.,
residences, schools) that could be adversely impacted from noise associated with aircraft flyovers.
Temporary construction workers would not be adversely affected by aircraft flyover as noise
generated from construction equipment would be the dominant noise exposure to them, which is
generally dealt with by wearing ear plugs to prevent hearing damage. Furthermore, long-term
maintenance workers would not sleep on-site; thus, they would not be exposed to potential sleep
disturbance from aircraft flyovers. Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people
residing or working near an airport to excessive airport/aircraft noise.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the
original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for
new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in
circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the
EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The SEIR identified Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 for noise impacts. Neither of these
mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 87 of 383
Population and Housing
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads and other infrastructure)?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 88 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Population and Housing Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for unplanned population growth (PH-1) and
substantial displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (PH-2) (Section 4.11, Population and Housing).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for unplanned population growth (PH-1) and
substantial displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere (PH-2) (Section 4.11, Population and Housing). Implementation of the proposed
Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace people or housing because the Project
would not require the removal of existing housing and would not propose changes to policies or
regulations related to land use or residential zoning or otherwise increase population growth in the
city or surrounding areas. Implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 89 of 383
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to
population and housing.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 90 of 383
Public Services
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
• Fire?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other public facilities?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 91 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Public Services Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services, including fire protection services (PS-1), police protection
services (PS-2), and schools (PS-3) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services, including fire protection services (PS-1), police protection
services (PS-2), and schools (PS-3) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation). Implementation of
the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where
construction may occur. The proposed Project would not generate new or increased demand for fire
protection services or interfere with or modify the ability of police and fire protection services to meet
performance objectives or response times outlined in the 2024 SEIR. The proposed Project does not
include development of new residences or the creation of substantial numbers of permanent jobs
requiring increased fire or police services. The proposed Project would not induce population growth
in the community that would require school services, new or expanded park facilities, other public
facilities. The proposed Project would not generate increased demand for public services such that
construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain adequate service ratios.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 92 of 383
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to public
services.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 93 of 383
Recreation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks, or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 94 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Recreation Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives (PS-4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the increase in use
of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and for including recreational
facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment (PS-4) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives (PS-4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the increase in use
of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and for including recreational
facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment (PS-4) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. The proposed Project would not generate new or increased demand
for parks and recreation facilities. Typically, this impact occurs when a project induces population
growth, such as new development or a business that would necessitate a large number of new
employees. The proposed Project does not include development of new residences or the creation of
substantial numbers of permanent jobs. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park
facilities nor increase the use of recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration
would occur or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 95 of 383
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to
recreation.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 96 of 383
Transportation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM T-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature ((e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 97 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Transportation Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact for conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
(T-1). The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure T-1 would aim to achieve VMT
reductions for development projects, it concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (T-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than
significant impact related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (T-3)
and for inadequate emergency access (T-4) (Section 4.13, Transportation).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact for conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
(T-1). The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure T-1 would aim to achieve VMT
reductions for development projects, it concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to
substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (T-3) and for inadequate emergency
access (T-4) (Section 4.13, Transportation). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change
the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction
may occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial population or
employment growth in the city that would in turn generate increased Vehicle Miles Traveled.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§15064.3(b). Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would be subject
to local rules and regulations. The city maintains improvement standards that guide the construction
of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the system. Furthermore,
General Plan policies 3-P.10, 3-P.12, 3-P.13, and 3-P.16 would reduce impacts related to safety.
Conclusion
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 98 of 383
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The 2024 SEIR identified Mitigation Measure T-1 for transportation impact T-2. This mitigation
measure is not applicable to the proposed Project.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 99 of 383
Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code §21074 as either
a site, feature, place cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 100 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New
Information of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur? (§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of the SEIR?
ii. A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision c of Public
Resources Code §5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider
the significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 101 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Tribal Cultural Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to causing a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that
is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (CUL-4) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to causing a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that
is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (CUL-4) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of
projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with
the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing
pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying
concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. and long-term changes such
as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would be
of the same time and place as previously identified. The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines
addresses identification and treatment of tribal cultural resources that may be impacted as a result of
measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §
5020.1(k). The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 102 of 383
tribal cultural resource, pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code §5024.1(c).
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to tribal
cultural resources.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 103 of 383
Utilities and Service Systems
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 104 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New
Information of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur? (§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of the SEIR?
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. Generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or
in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
e. Comply with federal, State,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 105 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Utilities and Service Systems Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities (UTIL-1); sufficient water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry
years (UTIL-2); adequate wastewater treatment capacity (UTIL-3); the generation of solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (UTIL-4) (Section 4.14,
Utilities and Service Systems).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities (UTIL-1); sufficient water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry
years (UTIL-2); adequate wastewater treatment capacity (UTIL-3); the generation of solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (UTIL-4) (Section 4.14,
Utilities and Service Systems). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of
projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed
Project would not increase development or induce population growth directly or indirectly, because
measures and actions do not propose new housing nor do they propose changes to policies or
regulations related to land use or residential or nonresidential zoning. The proposed Project would
not result in demand for new or expanded infrastructure, including water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, natural gas or telecommunication facilities would not increase to serve new
population or development. The implementation of the proposed Project would not involve
development of residential communities or other non-residential development or induce population
growth in an area that would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Further, it would not involve
the construction of restroom facilities. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 106 of 383
new habitable structures (e.g., housing, nonresidential development) that would generate
wastewater. Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce increased residential or non-
residential development, or population growth directly or indirectly, and there would be no increase
in solid waste production.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to utilities
and service systems.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 107 of 383
Wildfire
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant None No No No Yes Yes
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel brakes, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 108 of 383
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?
SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR Significance
Conclusion
SEIR Mitigation
Measures
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances Involving a
New or Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously
Identified Impacts?
Is There New Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
Necessary or
Did None of
the Conditions
Described in §15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project
is within
the
Scope of the
SEIR?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 109 of 383
Previous CEQA Analysis Wildfire Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for wildfire emergency response, access, and
evacuation (WF-1); and related to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate
wildfire risks, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes; and exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (WF-2) (Section 4.15, Wildfire).
The certified EIR/SEIR, and related addenda, were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are
presumed valid.
Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have
been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,”
circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental
environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental
impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the
proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further
environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the
approved EIR/SEIR.
Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1)
substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to
circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for wildfire emergency response, access, and
evacuation (WF-1); and related to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate
wildfire risks, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, exposing people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes; and exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (WF-2) (Section 4.15, Wildfire).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted
or where construction may occur. The implementation of the proposed Project would not involve
development of residential communities or other non-residential development or induce population
growth in an area that is subject to potential evacuations and the proposed Project would not result
in alterations of public roadways. Although the city is located within a Local Responsibly Area Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and adjacent to a State Responsibility Area Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, the proposed Project would not include the construction of new housing and do not
propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential zoning. The proposed
Project would not introduce new occupants that could be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of as wildfire or require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel brakes, emergency water sources, power lines or other
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 110 of 383
utilities). Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would comply with
the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (“EOP”) and be subject to the California Fire Code
(“CFC”), which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Development would also be
required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes
specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure, downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Compliance with
applicable policies, codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire.
Conclusion
The certified EIR/SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Further, the
certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR
did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.
Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review
procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes
in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to
the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial
changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the
Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate
the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities
associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in
the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to wildfire.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 111 of 383
7 References
Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall
be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of Addendum. All documents cited or referenced
are incorporated into the Addendum in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§15148 and 15150,
including but not limited to the following: City of Carlsbad. 2015. City of Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available : https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan/related-documents/-folder-773. Accessed July 20, 2024. _________. 2020. An Addendum to the Previously Certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan (PEIR 13-02). Available: https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5154824&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad. Accessed July 20, 2024. _________. 2021. 2021 Housing Element Update Addendum. Available: https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5312802&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad&cr=1. Accessed July 20, 2024.
_________. 2024. City of Carlsbad Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281700-3/attachment/_PFNFkSV8FCkmdU1hXlW25tF98n-BZ_pdzLkWZUQ3Kc2CA6Q1LZ_Xp9kUhHB0NSwdr7p4ccqp_dRZJ4S0. Accessed July 20, 2024. County of San Diego. 1997. 1997 Airport Master Plan Update. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/CRQ_MasterPlan1997.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024. _________. 2021. Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/Master-Plan-Update/2021/B-PEIR_Nov2021.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024. _________. 2021. 2021 Airport Master Plan Update. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/Master-Plan-Update/2021/H-Master_Plan_Update_2021.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024. In each instance where a document is incorporated by reference for purposes of this Addendum, the
Addendum shall briefly summarize the incorporated document, or briefly summarize the incorporated
data if the document cannot be summarized. In addition, the Addendum shall explain the relationship
between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Addendum.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 112 of 383
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7525
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO SPECIFY AND CLARIFY CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEEDURES FOR NEW AND
EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES.
CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED
AIRPORT LAND USES
CASE NO.: GPA2024-0001 / ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021
(PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is an operating mode of the U.S. Department of
Transportation – Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. §106), and, among other things, regulates
airports and provides guidance and standards for airport design, construction, and operations, and administers
other rules within Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“14 CFR Aeronautics and Space”); and
WHEREAS, the general balance between local, state, and federal authority in the context of aviation
regulation is well established. The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate aircraft safety and the efficient
use of the airspace. Outside those fields, local or state agencies may enact laws, policies, rules, or regulations
so as long as federal law, including FAA regulation, does not preempt those state or local laws; and
WHEREAS, the FAA publishes advisory circulars to provide guidance to airport proprietors on
compliance with certain requirements imposed by the FAA. Advisory Circular, AC No: 150/5070-6B – July 2005,
provides guidance for the preparation of airport master plans to support the modernization or expansion of
existing airports or the creation of new airports that range in size and function from small, privately owned
airstrips to large hub commercial airports; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §§21001 et seq.)
“is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress.” The California Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, administers much of this statute; and
Exhibit 2
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 113 of 383
WHEREAS, the Division of Aeronautics publishes a California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
which establishes statewide guidelines for airport land use compatible planning based on the State
Aeronautics Act; and
WHEREAS, the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670) requires each county in which an
airport is located to establish a seven-member Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”). The ALUC is an advisory
group that works to “assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of” airports (Public
Utilities Code §21674(a). The State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670.3) specifies that the ALUC is
responsible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(“ALUCP”) for each airport. An ALUCP provides for the orderly growth of an airport and the area surrounding
the airport within the jurisdiction of the ALUC, excluding existing land uses; and
WHEREAS, the McClellan-Palomar Airport (“Palomar Airport”) is owned and operated by the County of
San Diego (“County”) and was annexed to the City of Carlsbad (“City”) on Sept. 11, 1978. In order to comply
with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code, the Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCO”)
required an appropriate zoning designation be placed upon the airport property and for the County to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit from the City (LAFCO Annexation Case No. CA77-50); and
WHEREAS, at the time of its annexation, the future development and growth of the Palomar Airport
was set forth in a master plan that was prepared in 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Palomar Airport
Master Plan (“1975 PAMP”); and
WHEREAS, on Sept. 24, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Planning
Case No. CUP-172; Resolution No. 1699) as a condition of the Palomar Airport’s annexation into the City and
rezoning of the land for airport-related uses; and
WHEREAS, by the mid-1990s, the County began working on an update to the 1975 PAMP, called the
Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, which was approved and accepted by the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors on Sept. 16, 1997 (“1997 PAMPU”); and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 114 of 383
WHEREAS, on Jan. 25, 2010, the Board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting in its
capacity as the ALUC for the County, pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21670.3, adopted an ALUCP for Palomar
Airport based on the 1997 PAMPU; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2010, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority adopted the first
amendment to the ALUCP for Palomar Airport; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 1, 2011, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority adopted the second
amendment to the ALUCP for Palomar Airport (“2011 ALUCP”), as previously adopted by the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority on Jan. 25, 2010, and previously amended on March 4, 2010; and
WHEREAS, according to Public Utilities Code §21676(b), review of county or city plans and projects
pertaining to airport land use compatibility is one of the fundamental responsibilities of ALUCs. These local
government actions fall into two broad groups: (1) land use related, including general plans and zoning
ordinances, building regulation, or individual development projects; and (2) airport related, including plans for
the construction or expansion of an airport; and
WHEREAS, the FAA sets industry design standards for airports based upon the size and speed of
aircraft that use a particular airport. The design standards are set forth in FAA Advisory Circular, AC No:
150/5300-13B – March 2022, which provides industry standards for airport geometries, layouts, and designs,
all of which fall into design categories called Airport Reference Codes (“ARCs”). Runways are given an alpha
designation (A, B, C, D, & E) based on an aircraft’s approach speed and given an Airplane Design Group
indicated by numeric codes (I, II, III, IV, V, & VI) which are based on wingspan and tail height; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the Palomar Airport’s annexation into the City, and as of this writing, the ARC
for the Palomar Airport is a B-II classification; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 16, 2015, the County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to update the 1997
PAMPU to consider changes to the airport design, including extension of the existing airport runway; and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 115 of 383
WHEREAS, on Sept. 19, 2019, the City Council approved two resolutions, City Council Resolution No.
2019-178 and Resolution No. 2019-179. Resolution No. 2019-178 formally opposed the County’s selected
Airport Master Plan Update option that extended the runway by up to 800 feet. Resolution No. 2019-179
formally supported the Airport Master Plan Update option that did not include a runway extension; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 08, 2021, the County Board of Supervisors certified a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (“2021 PEIR”) and adopted the Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (“2021 PAMPU”).
WHEREAS, the City Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws,
rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations
contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all
rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.52.020, amendments to the City’s General Plan,
Zoning Code, or Local Coastal Program may be initiated by a property owner, the City Planner, the Planning
Commission, or the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 2024-
086,) to authorize the processing of code amendment applications to specify and clarify the City’s code
requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “Project”), in accordance with the 1978 annexation agreement between the City and County, as
detailed in the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Government Code §§65450 – 65457, Government Code
§§65350 et seq., Government Code §§66410 et. seq., and Government Code §§65864 – 65869.5, said verified
application in its entirety constitute amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design
Element (“General Plan”), Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), and Local Coastal
Program (the main land use document for coastal area development and natural resource protection); and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 116 of 383
WHEREAS, amendments to the Local Coastal Program are also subject to approval by the California
Coastal Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department as Planning Case Nos. GPA2024-0001 / ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021
(PUB2024-0008) in accordance with the rules and regulations of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and
the applicable procedures and time limits specified by the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code §§65920
et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, an original copy of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Local Coastal Program and all other related Project materials are on file in the Planning Division, with a copy of
each document submitted to the Planning Commission for its consideration. The Planning Division, located at
1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad CA 92008, is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which
documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions
of the California Public Records Act; and
WHEREAS, on Aug. 16, 2024, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting as the ALUC,
automatically determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the 2011 ALUCP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq.), and its implementing
regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000 et. seq., the City is the lead
agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed
Project. Pursuant to CEQA, Addendum No. 2 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State
Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007), relative to the Project was prepared and
the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of it per Planning Commission Resolution No. [insert
resolution no.]. If the City Council adopts the addendum, no further CEQA environmental analysis would be
required and all aspects of CEQA will be satisfied; and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 117 of 383
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the “San Diego Union Tribune” on Oct. 4, 2024,
and the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code
§§54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Carlsbad Municipal Code §§21.54.060.A and 21.54.061; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on Oct. 16, 2024, in the City Council
Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. The public hearing allowed interested
persons to appear and present their views. Evidence was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing, including, without limitation:
a. Written information;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public;
c. The Planning Commission staff report, dated Oct. 16, 2024, which along with its attachments is
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Additional information submitted during the public hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is necessary to
update ordinances and/or policy documents to improve clarity and specify code requirements for new or
expanded airport land uses, pursuant to the 1978 Annexation Agreement between the City and County, as
detailed in the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego held that the County
waived its immunities. The County obtained CUP-172 as a condition of the City’s annexation of the Palomar
Airport as a General Aviation Airport and rezoning of the land for airport-related uses; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision includes,
but is not limited to: (1) Project-related environmental documents, and any appendices and technical reports
cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff reports, City files and records
and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 118 of 383
the Project itself; (3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699 (CUP-172) and its exhibits and attachments; (4)
the 1975 PAMP, 1997 PAMPU, and 2021 PAMPU and its appendices and supplementary materials as adopted
by the County; (5) the 2011 ALUCP; (6) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein;
(7) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (8) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence
submitted to the City in connection with the Project itself; (9) all documentary and oral evidence received at
public workshops, meetings, or hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period and/or elsewhere
during the course of the review of the Project itself; (10) all other matters of common knowledge to the City,
including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and
projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly drafted
this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the understanding that this
information is complete, true, and accurate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record before it,
which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found
to be complete, true, accurate, and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and Local Coastal Program, which are attached hereto as Attachments A and B, are consistent
with the General Plan, Carlsbad Municipal Code (“CMC”), and Local Coastal Program, all as
amended hereinafter, in that the goals, objectives, and policies of said planning documents have
been or will be met. A complete analysis of consistency is provided in Exhibit 5 of the Oct. 16,
2024 Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission accepts and makes these
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 119 of 383
findings as its own, are hereby incorporated herein by reference (with the same force and effect
as though fully set forth herein). There is substantial evidence in the record to support such an
implied set of findings. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is consistent with
City Council Resolution Nos. 7530, 2019-178, and 2019-179.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Project is consistent with laws, policies, rules,
regulations, and the purposes of the 2011 ALUCP.
A. Until such time that the 2011 ALUCP is updated to account for the 2021 PAMPU, the
2011 ALUCP will continue to be utilized as a plan of record for new land development
projects near the Palomar Airport. As set forth above, any land development permits
proposed will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in the 2011
ALUCP. Deference to the provisions of the 2011 ALUCP ensures strict adherence to land
use measures that protect the public and minimize their exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to incompatible uses. Requiring compliance with the provisions of the
2011 ALUCP as a specific finding eliminates the risk of conflicting provisions between
ordinances and/or policy documents, and future updates to the ALUCP because the
most current adopted version of the ALUCP is the basis for the proposed findings.
Because the 2011 ALUCP was adopted by the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority to fulfill the purpose set forth in Public Utilities Code §21670(a)(2), required
compliance with the 2011 ALUPC by its very nature is consistent with that purpose.
4. Government Code §65103 provides that the Planning Commission, acting as a planning agency,
is charged with administration of the City’s General Plan and with making recommendations on
amendments to the plan. The Planning Commission further finds that City Council’s adoption of
the Project would be in the public interest and are necessary for the public health, safety and
welfare of the City.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 120 of 383
5. In accordance with State law, each General Plan Element may not be amended more than four
times in a calendar year (Government Code §65358) and a Local Coastal Program may not been
amended more than three times per year (Public Resources Code §30514). One amendment to
the Land Use and Community Design Element Land Use Element and one amendment to the
Public Safety Element have been approved thus far in the 2024 calendar year (to support the
Housing Element Rezone’s implementation). Both of these amendments constitute concurrent
amendments to the city’s Local Coastal Program; and
6. Notices of public review and for the Oct. 16, 2024 Planning Commission meeting were made at
the time and in the manner required by law.
7. Pursuant to the above findings, the Planning Commission therefore RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program as shown
in Attachments A and B.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 121 of 383
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, held on Oct. 16, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AVES: Kamenjarin, Danna, Hubinger, Lafferty, Meenes, Stine
NAVES: Merz
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MIKE STRONG,
Assistant Director, Community Development
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 122 of 383
City of Carlsbad
Proposed General Plan Amendments
SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Amend the policy 2-P.39 of the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan to read as specified below.
2-P.39 New and Expanded Airport Land Uses.
a.The current Airport Reference Code for McClellan-Palomar Airport, defined in the FAA’s Airport
Design Advisory Circular, is a B-II design classification. The city supports a B-II Enhanced
Alternative McClellan-Palomar design classification, as set forth in the Airport Master Plan, so
long as that classification does not require a runway extension. The city opposes any changes to
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan or approach speed
design for the airfield (for example, a reclassification as D-III Modified Standards Compliance as
described in the Airport Master Plan), or that would otherwise accommodate larger aircraft than
currently in use at the airport.
b.Require new or expanded airport uses to obtain a conditional use permit or a conditional use
permit amendment, subject to City Council approval. Permit airport development only within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport (as shown in Figure 2-1).
c.Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative action that
authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, except in compliance with Title 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.
d.The State Public Utilities Code definitions of “airport” and “airport expansion” shall apply to the
terms contained in this element.
Attachment A
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 123 of 383
ORDINANCE NO. .
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND A LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 21)
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFY AND CLARIFY CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW AND
EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES.
CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORT
LAND USES
CASE NOS.: ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. _____
recommending to the City Council that GPA2024-0001 / ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-
0008) be approved; and
WHEREAS, as required by state law, a six-week notice of availability was issued for LCPA2024-
0021 from May 21, 2024, to July 8, 2024. Comments were received and included with the
administrative record for the Project, and forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008); and
WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors, including written public
comments, if any, related to ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, ordains as follows that:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No.
_____ shall also constitute the findings of the City Council.
3.That the creation or establishment of airport hazards is a public nuisance.
4.That, in the interest of the public health, public safety and general welfare, creation
or establishment of airport hazards affecting the operation of the airports should be
reduced or eliminated.
5.That airport hazards can be reduced or eliminated by establishing boundaries for new
or expanded airports.
Attachment B
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 124 of 383
6. The purpose of this ordinance is not to interfere with the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) requirements (to the extent that such requirements preempt
action by the city), but to operate in conjunction with those policies, laws, rules, and
regulations to reduce or eliminate adverse airport impacts, public nuisances and to
promote public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing herein shall be construed to: (1)
affect in any manner any of the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA, (2) violate safety
regulations set by the FAA, or (3) to limit any proprietary right to provide General
Aviation Airport aeronautical services.
7. That Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended with the additions of
Sections 21.04.024 and 21.04.140.1, to read as follows:
21.04.024 Airport
“Airport” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21013.
21.04.140.1 Expansion.
“Expansion” means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or land use including the
physical size of the property, building, parking and other improvements. In the context of airports,
“airport expansion” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5. The acquisition of any real property interest which FAA requires to be depicted on the
airport layout plan is included in this definition.
8. That Chapter 21.07 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports”
from Section 21.07.020 Table A, as follows:
Section 21.07.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
9. That Chapter 21.29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports”
from Section 21.29.030 Table A, as follows:
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 125 of 383
I I -I I
Section 21.29.030 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
10. That Chapter 21.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports”
from Section 21.30.010 Table A, as follows:
Section 21.30.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
11. That Chapter 21.32 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to add a footnote to
“airports” in Section 21.32.010 Table A, to read as follows:
Section 21.32.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 3 below) 3
3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary
of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
12. That Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “air courier
services” and “airlines offices, general offices;” and to add a footnote to “airports” in
Section 21.34.020 Table A, to read as follows:
Section 21.34.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Air courier services (see note 1 below) X
Airlines offices, general offices (see note 1 below) X
Airports (see note 6 below) 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 126 of 383
I I -I I
I I -I I
I I I I
6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary
of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
13. That Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to update subsection C
and with the addition of subsections D and E, to read as follows:
21.54.125 Amendments to development permits.
A. For purposes of this section, “development permit” means any permit, entitlement or
approval required pursuant to Title 21 of this code, or pursuant to any applicable master, specific, or
redevelopment plan.
B. Any approved development permit may be amended by following the same procedure
required for the approval of said development permit (except that if the city council approved the
original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment), and
upon payment of the application fee contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city
council.
C. If an approved development permit was issued pursuant to the provisions of
Section 21.54.040 of this title, any amendment to said permit shall be acted on by the decision-
making authority that approved the original permit, except that if the city council approved the
original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment.
D. Notwithstanding subsections B and C, the City Council shall retain the decision-making
authority for amendments to development permits for new or expanded airport uses.
E. Amendments to approved development permits are reviewed under the city ordinances,
policies, or standards in effect at the time of the amended permit application is filed and deemed
complete or determined to be complete. In granting an amendment, the decision-making authority
may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions.
14. If any title, division, chapter, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court,
that decision does not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder of this
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 127 of 383
ordinance or the reminder of the city’s code. The City Council declares that it would
have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE COASTAL
ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify
the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance
prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES INSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE:
This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission approval of
LCPA2024-0021, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance
and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney
to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen
days after its adoption.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 128 of 383
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the ______
day of __________, 2024, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the __ day of ________, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
_________________________________
CINDIE K. McMAHON, City Attorney
_______________________________________
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
_______________________________________
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 129 of 383
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7526
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CITY
PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE §21661.6.
CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED
AIRPORT LAND USES
CASE NO.: OAJ2024-0001 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, the McClellan-Palomar Airport ("Palomar Airport") is owned and operated by the County of
San Diego ("County") and was annexed to the City of Carlsbad ("City") on Sept. 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, airport master plans are prepared to support planning for future needs for existing airports.
The last airport master plan completed for Palomar Airport was adopted on Dec. 08, 2021, which was
developed by the County to address potential future needs of the Palomar Airport ("2021 PAM PU"). The 2021
PAMPU identifies several improvements to meet and accommodate predicted growth in operations, including
extension of the existing runway to support a fleet of larger aircraft; and
WHEREAS, because the 2021 PAM PU contemplates acquisition of property beyond the current
boundaries of the Palomar Airport (and those properties are located within the limits of the City), under
California law (Public Utilities Code §21661.6) the acquisition of the property may not begin until: (1) the
County submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the City; and (2) the City holds a public
hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws,
rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations
contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all
rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 17, 2019, a minute motion was made by the City Council that directed the City
Manager and the City Attorney to coordinate and bring back to Council specific procedures outlining a process
the City of Carlsbad would use to consider an application for the approval of the acquisition of property where
Exhibit 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 130 of 383
such approval is required under Public Utilities Code §21661.6 and where a vote of the people of Carlsbad
would fit into that process (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Project”); and
WHEREAS, an original copy of the proposed procedures and all other related Project materials are on
file in the Planning Division, with a copy of each document submitted to the Planning Commission for its
consideration. The Planning Division, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008, is hereby
designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for
public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq.), and its implementing
regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000 et. seq., the City is the lead
agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed
Project. Pursuant to CEQA, Addendum No. 2 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State
Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007), relative to the Project was prepared and
the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of it per Planning Commission Resolution No. [insert
resolution no.]. If the City Council adopts the addendum, no further CEQA environmental analysis would be
required and all aspects of CEQA will be satisfied; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the “San Diego Union Tribune” on October 4,
2024, and the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code
§§54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Carlsbad Municipal Code §§21.54.060.A and 21.54.061; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on Oct. 16, 2024, in the City Council
Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. The public hearing allowed interested
persons to appear and present their views. Evidence was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this public hearing, including, without limitation:
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 131 of 383
a. Written information;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public;
c. The Planning Commission staff report, dated Oct. 16, 2024, which along with its attachments is
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Additional information submitted during the public hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that it is necessary to
adopt procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating the City of Carlsbad’s
role, review, and approval of an application for approval of a plan for airport expansion or enlargement or where
there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, including necessary findings
pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21661.6 (“Procedures”); and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision includes,
but is not limited to: (1) Project-related environmental documents, and any appendices and technical reports
cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff reports, City files and records
and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and
the Project itself; (4) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (7) the General
Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the
City in connection with the Project itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops,
meetings, or hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period and/or elsewhere during the course
of the review of the Project itself; (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the City, including, but
not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related
to development within the city and its surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly drafted
this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the understanding that this
information is complete, true, and accurate.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 132 of 383
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record before it,
which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found
to be complete, true, accurate, and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the acquisition of additional property beyond the current
boundaries of the airport is subject of interest to the local businesses, residents, and other
community members of Carlsbad and the cities of San Marcos and Vista, among others. The
Procedures, which are attached hereto as Attachment A as though fully set forth herein, are
designed to provide an expeditious review of County applications for approval of plans to
acquire property as required by Public Utilities Code §21661.6, while ensuring that all interested
parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on such applications.
3. The Planning Commission further finds that the Procedures do not affect the existing rights and
obligations of the County under existing statutes and regulations but are legally binding in their
own right. Any acquisition of any interest in real property authorized under the Public Utilities
Code would have to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing as required by Public
Utilities Code §21661.6.
4. The airport master plan and its appendices and supplementary materials as adopted by the
County does not relieve a person or persons from the responsibility of complying with applicable
laws, policies, rules, regulations of any city, state, and federal agencies.
5. Pursuant to the above findings, the Planning Commission therefore RECOMMENDS APPROVAL
of the Procedures (Attachment A; Planning Case No. OAJ2024-0001).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 133 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 134 of 383
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, held on Oct. 16, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Kamenjarin, Danna, Hubinger, Lafferty, Meenes, Stine
NAYES: Merz
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
MIKE STRONG,
Assistant Director, Community Development
Procedures for the City of Carlsbad’s Review
for New or Expanded Airport Land Uses
This paper outlines the procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters
relating to the City of Carlsbad’s role, review, and approval of an airport expansion or
enlargement plan or where there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of
the airport, including necessary findings pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (“PUC”)
§21661.6 (“Procedures”).
Nothing in this paper or implementation of thereof, affects any City Council action regarding
local land use requirements to obtain a conditional use permit, conditional use permit
amendment, or zoning map or text change, or any other action related to compliance with City
Code requirements.
I.INTRODUCTION
The McClellan-Palomar Airport
(“Airport”) is owned and operated by
the County of San Diego and located
north of Palomar Airport Road
between College Avenue and El
Camino Real. Palomar Airport is a
federally funded public use airport.
The County operates the Airport
subject to regulation by the State of
California and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
The single-runway Airport opened as the Palomar Airport in 1959 after County officials decided
to replace the Del Mar Airport. The Airport was annexed to the City of Carlsbad (“City”) in 1978
and renamed the McClellan-Palomar Airport in 1982. Today, the Airport provides general
aviation, corporate, scheduled charter, and commercial services; and is utilized by local
businesses, residents, and other community members. The FAA sets industry standards for
airport design based upon the largest aircraft that commonly uses an airport. (FAA defines
common use as 500 operations per year.) The Airport currently meets the FAA design criteria
for B-II Airport Reference Code (ARC). The County’s Airport Master Plan and proposed airport
layout plan recommends runway improvements so that the Airport can meet D-III design
Attachment A
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 135 of 383
{'Cityof
Carlsbad
..........
criteria.1 Adherence to this higher level of design may require that the County expand the
Airport or enlarge areas designated or set aside for the operation, storage, or maintenance of
aircraft or utilized or to be utilized to preserve the safety of aircraft operations or the safety of
persons or property on the ground in the vicinity of aircraft operations.
If the County were to implement its Airport Master Plan as drafted, the County would need to
acquire property beyond the current boundaries of the Airport (and those properties are
located within the limits of the City). California law (PUC §21661.6) provides that the
acquisition of the property to expand an airport may not begin until:
• The County submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the City; and
• The City holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan.
The potential acquisition of additional property is subject of interest to the local businesses,
residents, and other community members of Carlsbad and the cities of San Marcos and Vista,
among others. The procedures presented here are designed to provide an expeditious review of
any County proposal (presumably consistent with its Airport Master Plan Update (“Expansion
Plan”), while ensuring that all interested parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present
their views on any potential acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the
Airport.
Since its opening, the Airport has been a topic of concern for many residents because of its
impact on the community. The City has imposed limitations on growth of the Airport in a variety
of ways, including through annexation and issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP-172,
approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699). In addition, the City Council amended
the Carlsbad Municipal Code in 1980 to include Section 21.53.015, which requires an affirmative
public vote before the City Council can take any legislative action necessary to authorize
expansion of the Airport.
1 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses an Airport Reference Code (ARC) to establish
safety-related design criteria based on the Critical Design Aircraft, which is based on the fastest
and widest aircraft that use a particular airport. The ARC is an alpha-numeric designation based
on the aircraft’s approach speed (A, B, C, D, or E), and wingspan and tail height (I, II, III, IV, V or
VI), whereby A-I aircraft are slower and smaller than E-VI.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 136 of 383
II. SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE
In order to ensure a thorough, transparent, and efficient review of any proposal by the County
for the expansion of the Airport, City staff will endeavor to use its best efforts to adhere to the
following schedule for review of any expansion plan submitted in compliance with Public
Utilities Code Section 21661.6:
DAY 1: Notice of Filing and Completeness of Application to County
DAY 60: Issuance of Preliminary Staff Analysis of Expansion Plan and Notice of
Availability of Expansion Plan and Public Review Period*
DAY 75: End Public Review Period of Preliminary Staff Analysis of Expansion
DAY 80: Hearing Date Set (to be held within 40 days)
DAY 110: Notice of Public Hearing
DAY 120: Target Public Hearing/Decision Date*
* The City intends to reach a decision on the Expansion Plan within 120 days after the Notice
of Filing is provided to the County. While staff will endeavor to adhere to this timeline, the
failure to refer the Expansion Plan to the City Council within 120 days will not affect the
validity of the proceedings or City Council’s action. If the City Planner issues its Preliminary
Staff Analysis earlier than Day 60 or sets the hearing date earlier or later than 120 days, the
date or subsequent events will change accordingly.
III. OUTLINE OF PROCEDURES
A. Submission of the Expansion Plan
The County must submit the following materials in an Expansion Plan application:
1. The certified or adopted environmental clearance document;
2. Copy of the latest Airport Master Plan; and
3. Summary of the proposed acquisition of property and the role that property will
play in the proposed Expansion Plan.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 137 of 383
No Expansion Plan application shall be accepted unless it is in the proper form and contains
all required information. The City’s review of the Expansion Plan will not begin unless a duly
filed application has been accepted by the Planning Division. Submittals may be rejected if
the submittal package is incomplete. In order to expedite review of the Expansion Plan
documentation, the County is urged to consult with City staff in advance of submission of an
application to ensure that the submission will be deemed complete upon filing; incomplete
submissions will inevitably delay review.
B. Notice of Filing and Completeness of Application to Airport Authority
After the City has determined that the information submitted by the County constitutes an
adequate plan on which to base a review of an airport expansion or enlargement plan under
PUC §21661.6, the City’s Planning Division will notify the County by letter that its application
under PUC §21661.6 is complete and ready for processing. This Notice of Filing and
Completeness of Application (“Notice of Filing”) will trigger the City’s review process and
timeline. The Notice of Filing will include target dates for actions under these Procedures.
C. Submission of Additional Information
The County is not required to submit any additional information regarding the Expansion
Plan. However, if the County wants to submit any additional information for consideration
by the City staff in preparing its Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Expansion Plan, the City will
accept building specifications, plans detailing placement of buildings, sewer lines, water
lines, etc., forecasts of aviation demand, analysis of airport capacity, environmental
procedures and analysis, an access plan, a land use plan, a terminal area plan, development
schedules and cost estimates, analysis of the impact of the Expansion Plan on affected areas
of the City, or any other information the County wishes to provide.
D. Preliminary Review by City
Staff review of the Expansion Plan will begin once the Notice of Filing of Application is
provided to the County. Within 60 days, City staff will prepare a Preliminary Staff Analysis of
the Expansion Plan (the "Preliminary Analysis"). The Preliminary Analysis has a 15-day public
review period which is provided by the Notice of Availability of Expansion Plan and Public
Review Period (“Notice of Availability”).
The Notice of Availability must be published as a display advertisement of at least one-
eighth page in at least two newspapers of general circulation within the City; and will be
mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have
previously requested such notice in writing. The Notice of Availability must also be posted
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 138 of 383
on the City’s Internet website or to another Internet website where other City notices are
posted.
A copy of the Preliminary Analysis and Notice of Availability will be provided to the County.
A copy of the Preliminary Analysis will also be available for public review (and may be copied
at the expense of any interested party) at:
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
E. Preliminary Analysis Review Period and Opportunity to Supplement the Public Record
A 15-day period will be provided for interested parties to review the Preliminary Analysis
before the City establishes the date for a public hearing. This 15-day review period will begin
when the Preliminary Analysis is provided to the County. The County or any other interested
party may submit written comments on the Preliminary Analysis and/or submit additional
information regarding the proposed Expansion Plan during this period. Submission of any
written comments and/or supplementary information will be voluntary only and will be
included in the public record.
F. Time of Public Hearing
Within five days of the end of the 15-day period for review of the Preliminary Analysis, the
City Planner will set the date on which the public hearing on the Expansion Plan will be held.
It is the City's intention to reach a decision on the Expansion Plan within 120 days after the
Notice of Filing of Application is provided to the County. This timeline is discretionary, not
mandatory, and the failure to refer the Expansion Plan to the City Council within 120 days
does not affect the validity of the proceedings or City Council’s action.
G. Time and Manner of Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Expansion Plan
Notice of the application for Expansion Plan approval pursuant to PUC §21661.6 shall be
given pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 21.54.060.A.1 and
21.54.061.
All written comments submitted to the City Planner will become a part of the record of the
hearing. A copy of all written comments will be available to the public (and may be copied at
the expense of any interested party).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 139 of 383
Hearing
The City Council will conduct the public hearing on the Expansion Plan in accordance with its
standard procedures for public hearings contained in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.20
and any additional rules and regulations developed by the City Clerk.
1. Presentation/Summary of Expansion Plan. City staff will present a summary of
the Preliminary Analysis and any revision made as a result of comments or
information received during the review period. This presentation will include a
summary of the proposed acquisition of the subject property by the County and
the role that property will play in the proposed Expansion Plan.
2. Summary of Communications. Written communications received or provided by
the City regarding matters under consideration at the hearing will be
summarized. A copy of all such communications will be entered into the record.
3. Opportunity for Interested Parties to be Heard. Both those interested parties
who favor and those who oppose approval of the Expansion Plan will be heard.
Any written comments not previously submitted will be accepted and made a
part of the record at that time. If the County requests, it will be given an
opportunity to comment on both the Preliminary Analysis and any public
comment. Such comment will be in addition to any written submission provided
by the County.
4. Record of Hearing. A record of the hearing will be made and will include an
audio/visual recording of the proceedings, a copy of the Expansion Plan, a copy
of all written comments received prior to and during the hearing, and any other
material necessary to provide a full, adequate administrative record of the
proceeding.
IV. OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL
The Expansion Plan will be approved if the City Council finds that:
1. The Expansion Plan does not require the prior or concurrent approval of a
conditional use permit, conditional use permit amendment, or zoning map or
text change by the City.2
2 Discretionary permits or approvals prescribed by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
may be required as a prerequisite for entitlement and must be obtained and secured prior
to the approval of an Expansion Plan. If the details of the County’s request require the
processing of discretionary permits, there are inherent risks associated with concurrent
processing. A discretionary permit may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 140 of 383
2. The advantages to the public of the proposed Expansion Plan outweigh the
disadvantages to both the public and the environment. Environmental factors to
be considered include noise, air pollution, and the burden on surrounding areas,
including traffic.
3. Approval of the Expansion Plan is consistent with the objective of adopting land
use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not
already devoted to compatible uses. In determining whether these findings are
justified, the City Council will consider any factors which it deems to be relevant,
including the following:
A. Determination that appropriate public notice was provided.
B. The impacts and consequences of all phases of the Expansion Plan, including
but not limited to land acquisition; project development; and the operation,
storage, or maintenance of aircraft.
C. All significant effects of the proposed expansion, both direct and indirect,
over the short term and long term, including the impact the project may have
on road traffic, infrastructure needs, or other impacts associated with greater
number of persons using the airport.
Nothing in this section will preclude the City Council from approving the
Expansion Plan subject to conditions designed to ensure that the advantages to
the public of the proposed Expansion Plan will outweigh the disadvantages to
both the public and the environment. Such conditions may include mandatory
amendments to the Expansion Plan, or the imposition of restrictions or
limitations, to the extent not preempted by FAA, on the implementation of the
Expansion Plan.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 141 of 383
City of Carlsbad
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments
GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008)
SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Amend the policy 2-P.39 of the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan to read as specified below,
signified as replacements, additions, or revisions to existing text. Revisions to existing text are shown in
order by section number, with strikeout typeface (i.e. strikeout) illustrating deletions and underline
typeface (i.e. underline) illustrating new text.
A clean-copy of the proposed changes are provided as an attachment to the resolution in the Oct. 16,
2024 Planning Commission staff report.
2-P.39 New and Expanded Airport Land Uses.
a.The current Airport Reference Code for McClellan-Palomar Airport, defined in the FAA’s Airport
Design Advisory Circular, is a B-II design classification. The city supports a B-II Enhanced
Alternative McClellan-Palomar design classification, as set forth in the Airport Master Plan, so
long as that classification does not require a runway extension. The city opposes any changes to
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan or approach speed
design for the airfield (for example, a reclassification as D-III Modified Standards Compliance as
described in the Airport Master Plan), or that would otherwise accommodate larger aircraft than
currently in use at the airport.
b.Require new or expanded airport uses to obtain a conditional use permit or a conditional use
permit amendment, subject to City Council approval. Permit airport development only within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport (as shown in Figure 2-1).
c.Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative action that
authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized to do so by a majority
vote of the Carlsbad electorate (Section 21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.) except in
compliance with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and California Public Utilities Code
Section 21661.6.
d.The State Public Utilities Code definitions of “airport” and “airport expansion” shall apply to the
terms contained in this element.
SECTION 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (TITLE 21)
Amend the various titles and sections of the Zoning Ordinance to read as specified below, signified as
replacements, additions, or revisions to existing text. Revisions to existing text are shown in order by
section number, with strikeout typeface (i.e. strikeout) illustrating deletions and underline typeface (i.e.
underline) illustrating new text.
Exhibit 4
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 142 of 383
A clean-copy of the proposed changes are provided as an attachment to the resolution in the Oct. 16,
2024 Planning Commission staff report.
21.04.024 Airport
“Airport” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21013.
21.04.140.1 Expansion.
“Expansion” means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including the physical
size of the property, building, parking and other improvements. In the context of airports, “airport
expansion” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5. The
acquisition of any real property interest which FAA requires to be depicted on the airport layout plan is
included in this definition.
Section 21.07.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Section 21.29.030 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Section 21.30.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Section 21.32.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 3 below) 3
3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of
McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 143 of 383
I I -I I
I I -I I
I I -I I
I I I I
Section 21.34.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Air courier services (see note 1 below) X
Airlines offices, general offices (see note 1 below) X
Airports (see note 6 below) 3
6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of
McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
21.54.125 Amendments to development permits.
A. For purposes of this section, “development permit” means any permit, entitlement or approval
required pursuant to Title 21 of this code, or pursuant to any applicable master, specific, or
redevelopment plan.
B. Any approved development permit may be amended by following the same procedure required for
the approval of said development permit (except that if the city council approved the original permit,
the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment), and upon payment of
the application fee contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council.
C. If an approved development permit was issued pursuant to the provisions of
Section 21.54.042 21.54.040 of this title, any amendment to said permit shall be acted on by the
decision-making authority that approved the original permit, except that if the city council approved the
original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment.
D. Notwithstanding subsections B and C, the City Council shall retain the decision-making authority for
amendments to development permits for new or expanded airport uses.
E. Amendments to approved development permits are reviewed under the city ordinances, policies, or
standards in effect at the time of the amended permit application is filed and deemed complete or
determined to be complete. In granting an amendment, the decision-making authority may impose new
conditions and may revise existing conditions.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 144 of 383
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Project is subject to the following regulations: A.Federal Regulations
B.State Regulations
C.General Plan
D.Municipal Code
E.Local Coastal Program
F.Growth Management Plan
G.McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The recommendation for approval of the Project was developed by analyzing the Project’s consistency
with the applicable laws, policies, rules, and regulations, which is discussed in detail within the sections
below.
A.Federal Regulations
Federal statutes (U.S.C. Title 49) give the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) comprehensive and
exclusive authority to regulate the safety of aircraft in flight and the efficient use of the airspace, and
the FAA has issued a complex set of regulations in these areas. The FAA establishes standards for the
planning, design, construction, and operation of airports and supporting a national system of airports
that is safe, efficient, and environmentally compatible. Airport proprietors of public-use airports, like
Palomar Airport, look to the FAA for guidance in meeting those standards and for grants to help meet
their airports’ construction and capital needs. The federal government, through the FAA as an
operating mode of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has preempted the field of “airspace
management.” (49 U.S.C. § 40103, § 44502, and § 44701 to § 44735). Local agencies also may not
regulate the “rates, routes, or services of any air carrier” registered under federal law (49 U.S.C. §
41713) and the federal government has declared it is “to possess and exercise complete and
exclusively national sovereignty in the airspace of the United States.” Outside those fields, local
agencies may enact laws, policies, rules, or regulations as long as their laws do not conflict with federal
law. As a general rule, a local or state law will be found by a court to be preempted if it is impossible
to comply with both the local law and federal law or if it frustrates the purposes and objectives of
federal regulation. In consideration of the proposed Project, the City of Carlsbad (“city”) evaluated
any potential interference with federal law or related matters such as the effects the proposal would
have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the
existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety
of persons and property on the ground and known natural objects within the affected area. The city
finds that the proposed Project is consistent with and is not preempted by the federal statutory and
regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, air traffic control, aviation safety,
navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source. The purpose of the Project is
not to conflict with FAA requirements, but to operate in conjunction with those requirements to
reduce or eliminate hazards to or from aircraft and promote public health, safety, and welfare. The
Project does not purport to bestow any jurisdiction, power, or authority to regulate, review, or
approve, deny, or condition construction of improvements within the existing boundaries of the
Palomar Airport. The Project is neither frustrating or constraining the continued safe and efficient
operation of the Palomar Airport or indirectly regulating the rates, routes, or services of any air carrier.
Exhibit 5
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 145 of 383
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 3
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS}
Because the FAA does not have the authority to regulate off-airport land uses and because land use
decisions are often made at the local level, the city is responsible for making final land use decisions
for land use beyond the Palomar Airport’s existing boundaries, including for expansion or enlargement
of those airport boundaries. And in this instance, the city is exercising its police powers over its
municipal affairs and to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures
for new or expanded airport land uses for the areas of land outside of the existing airport boundary.
B. State Regulations
State law is the foundation for local planning in California. Government Code (§§ 65000 et seq.)
contains many of the laws pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments including
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Much of these police powers have been delegated to the city
councils and boards of supervisors of the individual cities and counties. The ability to enact ordinances
to protect the health, safety, and welfare is important in the land use context because it confers very
broad rights to adopt regulations that implement local values, so long as the requirements enacted
by a city are not in conflict with state general laws (Cal. Const. at. XI, § 7.)
The purpose of the State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code §§ 21001 et seq., “is to protect the
public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress.” The California Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, administers much of this statute and governs various matters
relative to aviation in the state, and authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt,
administer, and enforce rules and regulations for the administration of the Act. The Division of
Aeronautics’ Office of Airports is responsible for airport permitting and inspection, and other matters
related to airports and aviation in the state. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21664 and California
Code of Regulations § 3534, an airport proprietor must apply and obtain a permit from the Division
of Aeronautics’ Office of Airports prior to an airport’s construction, establishment, or expansion.
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21666, before issuing a State Airport Permit, the Division of
Aeronautics’ Office of Airports considers the following:
1) The site meets or exceeds the minimum airport standards of safety.
2) Safe air traffic patterns have been established for the proposed airport and all existing airports
and approved airport sites in its vicinity.
3) Safe "zones of approach" for the airport have been engineered in conformity with the
provisions of Public Utilities Code § 21403.
4) Imposing reasonable permit conditions which it deems necessary to ensure the purposes of
Public Utilities Code § 21666.
5) The advantages to the public in selection of the site of a proposed new airport (or airport
expansion) outweigh the disadvantages to the environment. Environmental considerations
include but are not limited to noise, air pollution, and the burden upon the surrounding area
caused by the airport (or airport expansion), including but not limited to, surface traffic and
expense.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program do not
take control of state-mandated airport planning. The Project does not interfere with the periodic
review or update of airport master plan(s) or airport layout plan(s) to ensure that they remain current
and consistent with changes in state laws and airport development and activity. Rather, the Project
specifies and clarifies the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded
airport land uses to better align with the existing requirements of the state.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 146 of 383
The State Legislature established a process for cities and counties to review an application to expand
or enlarge an airport or acquire property for an airport beyond the airport’s existing boundaries.
Under California law (Public Utilities Code § 21661.6) the acquisition of the property may not begin
until: (1) the airport proprietor submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the local
agency of jurisdiction; and (2) the local agency holds a public hearing on the plan to approve or deny
the plan. This provision in state law grants specific powers to cities and counties and enables the city
and other local agencies to put certain laws, policies, rules, and regulations into effect and to enforce
them (related to airport expansions or enlargements or where there is an acquisition of additional
airport property). The proposed Project does not purport to bestow any jurisdiction, power, or
authority to regulate, review, or approve, deny, or condition construction of improvements within the
existing boundaries of Palomar Airport. Rather, the proposed Project specifies and clarifies the city’s
code requirements and sets forth review procedures for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport in
accordance with state law (Public Utilities Code § 21661.6).
There are existing airport noise, safety, and land use compatibility problems at many airports in
California. In addition, there is a potential for exacerbation of these noise and safety problems as use
of air travel continues to grow. Through cooperative efforts on both the federal, state, and local levels,
much has already been accomplished in limiting the growth and spread of noise and safety
compatibility problems. The proposed Project does not regulate the permissible physical uses of land
within Palomar Airport (existing boundaries). The proposed Project encourages the continued
operation of the Palomar Airport as a General Aviation Airport, while specifying and clarifying the
city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport.
C. General Plan Consistency
The General Plan is a broad planning document that is filled with policies and goals associated with
the future development of the city. The General Plan consists of goals and policies that address or
speak on Project-related topic areas such as “proximity to the airport,” “airport land use
compatibility,” “airport noise,” and “airport safety.” The proposed Project is consistent with the
General Plan’s related goals and policies as described in the table below:
TABLE A – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
Land Use &
Community
Design
Goal 2-G.9 – Accommodate a
diversity of business establishments
in appropriately scaled settings,
including large-scaled industrial and
research and development
establishments proximate to the
McClellan-Palomar Airport,
regionally-scaled shopping centers,
and neighborhood-serving
commercial centers with smaller-
sized stores, restaurants and offices
The proposed Project does not
significantly change the intent of
the use of the lands or areas
surrounding the airport, as it was
originally contemplated in the
General Plan. The Project continues
to allow “airport” related uses by
issuance of a new or amended
Conditional Use Permit, subject to
City Council approval. The property
within the current boundary of
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 147 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
to meet shopping, recreation, and
service needs of residents and
visitors.
Palomar Airport as depicted in the
city General Plan Maps would
continue to allow for “airport”
related uses. The designated size,
area, or degree of the mapped
airport, as historically designated on
the city’s General Plan Maps, does
not change by any measurable or
quantifiable dimension. The Project
does not threaten the airport’s
ability to serve its function in the
local economy.
Land Use &
Community
Design
Goal 2-G.13 – Maintain land use
compatibility between McClellan-
Palomar Airport and surrounding
land uses and encourage the
airport’s continued operations while
ensuring it does not unduly impact
existing neighborhoods and
communities.
The proposed Project does not
significantly change the intent of
the use of the lands or areas
surrounding the airport, as it was
originally contemplated in the
General Plan. The Palomar Airport
continues to have a Public (P)
General Plan land use designation.
The proposed amendments and
procedures encourage the
continued operation of the Palomar
Airport as a General Aviation
Airport, while specifying and
clarifying the city’s code
requirements and permit review
procedures for the orderly
expansion of Palomar Airport. This
will help provide for the orderly
development of the airport, while at
the same time protecting the public
health, safety, and welfare to the
area surrounding the airport.
Yes
Land Use &
Community
Design
Policy 2-P.37 – Require new
development located in the Airport
Influence Area (“AIA”) to comply
with applicable land use
compatibility provisions of the
McClellan–Palomar ALUCP through
review and approval of a site
development plan or other
The Project does not result in
incompatible land uses adjacent to
Palomar Airport. The proposed
Project does not authorize a use or
project/activity that could
constitute hazards to people or
property or aircraft in flight. The
proposed Project does not
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 148 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
development permit. Unless
otherwise approved by City Council,
development proposals must be
consistent or conditionally
consistent with applicable land use
compatibility policies with respect
to noise, safety, airspace protection,
and overflight notification, as
contained in the McClellan-Palomar
ALUCP. Additionally, development
proposals must meet FAA
requirements with respect to
building height as well as the
provision of obstruction lighting
when appurtenances are permitted
to penetrate the transitional surface
(a 7:1 slope from the runway
primary surface). Consider San
Diego County Regional Airport
Authority Airport Land Use
Commission recommendations in
the review of development
proposals.
authorize a new building or
structure and it does not increase
the number of people expected to
occupy a non-residential or
residential development in the
airport or in the lands or areas
surrounding the airport. The
proposed Project does not
construct, erect, or install tall
structures, trees, and other objects
near airports or on high terrain. The
proposed Project does not develop
or construct a facility that
represents special safety concerns,
attracts wildlife, causes visual
impairment, or generates electronic
interference.
The ALUCP will continue to be
utilized as a plan of record for new
land development projects near the
Palomar Airport. Deference to the
provisions of the ALUCP ensures
strict adherence to land use
measures that protect the public
and minimize their exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards
within areas around public airport
to the extent that these areas are
not already devoted to
incompatible uses. Findings of
consistency with the ALUCP are
required for all discretionary
entitlements (land development
permits) to protect the public from
the adverse effects of aircraft noise,
ensuring that people and facilities
are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents,
and ensure no structures or
activities adversely affect navigable
airspace. Because the ALUCP was
adopted by the ALUC to fulfill the
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 149 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
purpose of set forth in Public
Utilities Code § 21670(a)(2),
required compliance with the
ALUPC by its very nature is
consistent with that purpose.
Land Use &
Community
Design
Policy 2-P.38 – Coordinate with the
San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority Airport Land Use
Commission, and the FAA to protect
public health, safety and welfare by
ensuring the orderly operation of
the airport and the adoption of land
use measures that minimize the
public’s exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards within areas
around the airport.
Any expansion or change to the
airport onto adjacent property
including acquisition of any interest
in real property would already have
to be considered by the City Council
at a public hearing, pursuant to
Public Utilities Code § 21661.6. The
proposed amendments and
procedures encourage the
continued operation of the Palomar
Airport as a General Aviation
Airport, while specifying and
clarifying the city’s code
requirements and permit review
procedures for the orderly
expansion of Palomar Airport.
Given that the amendments do not
materially affect allowable land uses
and the density or intensity of
development regulations and do
not have implications for ALUCP
noise, airspace, or safety
compatibility within the areas of
airport influence (Airport Influence
Area), the Project is consistent with
the ALUCP. Refer to Section G for
more information about how the
Project was coordinated with the
ALUC.
Yes
Mobility Policy 3-P.35 – Partner with other
agencies and/or developers to
improve transit connectivity within
Carlsbad. As part of a
comprehensive transportation
demand management (TDM)
strategy and/or with transit-
The Project has no bearing on when
or how the city partners with other
agencies to improve transit
connectivity. The proposed Project
does not significantly change the
intent of the use of the lands or
areas surrounding the airport, as it
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 150 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
oriented development (TOD), a
shuttle system could be established
that connects destinations and
employment centers like
LEGOLAND, hotels, the Village,
McClellan-Palomar Airport, business
parks, the COASTER and Breeze
transit stations, public activity
centers (such as senior centers, city
hall, libraries, etc.) and key
destinations along the coast. The
system could incorporate shuttle
service in adjacent cities to
maximize connectivity.
was originally contemplated in the
General Plan. The proposed
amendments and procedures
encourage the continued operation
of the Palomar Airport as a General
Aviation Airport, while specifying
and clarifying the city’s code
requirements and permit review
procedures in the event of a
proposal to expand Palomar
Airport. The setting and conditions
should be the same (i.e., there no
change to the baseline assumptions
of land use (population, housing,
and job growth), travel demand
models, and forecasted future
travel patterns and conditions).
Mobility Policy 3-P.36 – Encourage NCTD,
SANDAG and other transit providers
to provide accessibility for all modes
of travel to the McClellan-Palomar
Airport area.
The proposed amendments and
procedures encourage the
continued operation of the Palomar
Airport as a General Aviation
Airport, while specifying and
clarifying the city’s code
requirements and permit review
procedures in the event of a
proposal to expand Palomar
Airport.
Yes
Mobility Policy 3-P.44 – Work with the
County of San Diego and other
agencies to ensure continued safe
and efficient operation of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport,
consistent with the Carlsbad
Community Vision and existing city
policy.
The Project would encourage the
continued operation of the airport
as a General Aviation Airport, while
specifying and clarifying the city’s
code requirements and permit
review procedures in the event of a
proposal to expand Palomar
Airport, without either frustrating
or constraining the continued safe
and efficient operation of the
airport or exposing people living or
working nearby to unacceptable
levels of noise or safety hazards.
This does not alter or change the
shared goals of the County and city
in protecting the public from the
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 151 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
adverse effects of aircraft noise,
ensuring that people and facilities
are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents,
and ensuring no structures or
activities adversely affect navigable
airspace.
Noise Goal 5-G.4 – Ensure long-term
compatibility between the airport
and surrounding land use.
Compatible land use planning can
benefit both the airport and city.
Effective land use planning can
prevent expensive and problematic
incompatible land uses from
developing in the first place and can
help mitigate issues associated with
historically incompatible uses.
These include residential use within
airport noise contours; airspace
obstructions and hazards to safe
navigation to and from the airport
such as tall structures, light, glare,
electronic/radio, smoke, steam, or
other atmospheric interference
emanating from nearby land uses;
land uses that attract birds and
other wildlife hazards to the airport
and its immediate environs; and
land uses with concentrations of
people or property within airport
runway protection zones.
The proposed Project is consistent
with the city’s ALUC-approved
General Plan and ALUCP. The
General Plan and ALUCP establishes
criteria limiting the maximum
number of dwellings or people in
areas close to the airport is the
most direct method of reducing the
potential severity of an aircraft
accident. Mechanisms and
procedures have been fully
incorporated into the city’s General
Plan to further advance Goal 5-G.4,
without constraining the safe and
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 152 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
efficient operation of the airport or
exposing people living or working
nearby to potential negative
environmental or safety impacts.
The Project would encourage the
continued operation of the airport
as a General Aviation Airport, while
specifying and clarifying the city’s
code requirements and permit
review procedures in the event of a
proposal to expand Palomar
Airport. The ALUCP will continue to
be utilized as a plan of record for
new land development projects
near the Palomar Airport to ensure
long-term compatibility between
the airport and surrounding land
uses.
Noise Policy 5-P.16 – Require new
nonresidential development to
comply with the noise compatibility
criteria in the ALUCP. Require
dedication of aviation easements
for new developments designated
as conditionally compatible for
noise in the ALUCP, and which are
located within the 65 dB CNEL noise
contour as mapped on Figure 5-4:
Airport Noise Compatibility Policy
Map.
The Project does not result in
incompatible land uses adjacent to
Palomar Airport. The ALUCP will
continue to be utilized as a plan of
record for new land development
projects near the Palomar Airport.
Deference to the provisions of the
ALUCP ensures strict adherence to
land use measures that protect the
public and minimize their exposure
to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public
airport to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses. Findings of
consistency with the ALUCP are
required for all discretionary
entitlements (land development
permits) to protect the public from
the adverse effects of aircraft noise,
ensuring that people and facilities
are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents,
and ensure no structures or
activities adversely affect navigable
airspace. Because the ALUCP was
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 153 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
adopted by the ALUC to fulfill the
purpose of set forth in Public
Utilities Code § 21670(a)(2),
required compliance with the
ALUPC by its very nature is
consistent with that purpose.
Noise Policy 5-P.7 – Mitigation Cost. The
City of Carlsbad shall not fund
mitigation of existing or future
noise impacts from streets, railroad,
airport or any other source for
existing or future private
development within the city.
The Project has no bearing on city
expenditures or irrecoverable
commitments to fund mitigation
projects related to the airport.
Yes
Noise Policy 5-P.12 – Use the noise
policies in the McClellan-Palomar
ALUCP to determine acceptability of
a land use within the AIA as
depicted in the ALUCP. Additional
disclosure actions for new
development in the AIA, such as
aviation easements, deed
restrictions, recorded notice, etc.,
are required of developers/sellers
of noise impacted residential units.
The ALUCP will continue to be
utilized as a plan of record for new
land development projects near the
Palomar Airport to ensure long-
term compatibility between the
airport and surrounding land uses.
Findings of consistency with the
ALUCP are required for all
discretionary entitlements (land
development permits) to protect
the public from the adverse effects
of aircraft noise, ensuring that
people and facilities are not
concentrated in areas susceptible to
aircraft accidents, and ensure no
structures or activities adversely
affect navigable airspace.
Yes
Noise Policy 5-P.13 – For projects within
the AIA, utilize the noise standards
contained in the McClellan-Palomar
ALUCP, as well as the noise
standards contained in this
element. However, reserve the right
to overrule the ALUCP as provided
for in State Public Utilities Code §
21676.
The ALUCP will continue to be
utilized as a plan of record for new
land development projects near the
Palomar Airport to ensure long-
term compatibility between the
airport and surrounding land uses.
Findings of consistency with the
ALUCP are required for all
discretionary entitlements (land
development permits) to protect
the public from the adverse effects
of aircraft noise, ensuring that
people and facilities are not
concentrated in areas susceptible to
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 154 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
aircraft accidents, and ensure no
structures or activities adversely
affect navigable airspace.
Noise Policy 5-P.14 – Recognize that
procedures for the abatement of
aircraft noise have been identified
in the Fly Friendly Program for
McClellan-Palomar Airport. The city
expects the widespread
dissemination of, and pilot
adherence to, the adopted
procedures.
The Project would encourage the
continued operation of the airport
as a General Aviation Airport, while
specifying and clarifying the city’s
code requirements and permit
review procedures in the event of a
proposal to expand Palomar Airport
and has no bearing on the Fly
Friendly Program.
Yes
Noise Policy 5-P.15 – Expect the airport to
control noise (to the extent of its
limited authority granted by the
FAA to indirectly regulate aircraft
noise through airport design and
scheduling) while the city shall
control land-use thus sharing
responsibility for achieving and
maintaining long-term noise/land-
use compatibility in the vicinity of
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Any expansion or change to the
airport onto adjacent property
including acquisition of any interest
in real property would already have
to be considered by the City Council
at a public hearing pursuant to
Public Utilities Code § 21661.6. The
proposed Project exercises city
authority to regulate local and
municipal affairs or control over the
lands surrounding an airport,
through the enactment of
ordinances and resolutions. Because
the FAA does not have the authority
to regulate off-airport land uses and
because land use decisions are
often made at the local level, the
City Council is the governmental
authority responsible for the final
land use decision for airport land
use or airport expansion to ensure
long-term compatibility between
the airport and surrounding land
use.
Yes
Noise Policy 5-P.16 – Require new
nonresidential development to
comply with the noise compatibility
criteria in the ALUCP. Require
dedication of aviation easements
for new developments designated
as conditionally compatible for
noise in the ALUCP, and which are
The Project does not result in
incompatible land uses adjacent to
Palomar Airport. The ALUCP will
continue to be utilized as a plan of
record for new land development
projects near the Palomar Airport.
Deference to the provisions of the
ALUCP ensures strict adherence to
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 155 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
located within the 65 dB CNEL noise
contour as mapped on Figure 5-4:
Airport Noise Compatibility Policy
Map.
land use measures that protect the
public and minimize their exposure
to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public
airport to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses. Findings of
consistency with the ALUCP are
required for all discretionary
entitlements (land development
permits) to protect the public from
the adverse effects of aircraft noise,
ensuring that people and facilities
are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents,
and ensure no structures or
activities adversely affect navigable
airspace. Because the ALUCP was
adopted by the ALUC to fulfill the
purpose of set forth in Public
Utilities Code § 21670(a)(2),
required compliance with the
ALUPC by its very nature is
consistent with that purpose.
Public Safety Goal 6-G.2 – Minimize safety
hazards related to aircraft
operations in areas around the
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
There are several components of
risk provide the basis for setting
safety compatibility policies,
including but not limited to (1) the
location, shape, and size of safety
compatibility zones; (2) density and
intensity and other land use
characteristics; and (3) frequency of
operations. One of the important
goals of an ALUC is to try to
minimize the exposure of persons
to the potential risk of aviation
accidents. The most common way
of doing this is to encourage low
density development in critical
safety zones. Significantly greater
protection should be afforded to
residential uses with a preference
towards low density structures near
airports. The ALUCP establishes
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 156 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
criteria limiting the maximum
number of dwellings or people in
areas close to the airport is the
most direct method of reducing the
potential severity of an aircraft
accident.
As documented herein, the General
Plan provides the broad guidelines
and goals which shape and direct
airport land use compatibility.
The proposed code amendments
clarify that airport-related land uses
are permitted only within the
current boundary of Palomar
Airport. Residential development
and most institutional land uses
(hospitals, schools, etc.) continue to
be limited in the areas of airport
influence and all other land uses
and activities continue to be
permitted as it was originally
contemplated in the General Plan.
Any expansion or change to the
airport onto adjacent property
including acquisition of any interest
in real property would already have
to be considered by the City Council
at a public hearing pursuant to
Public Utilities Code § 21661.6. The
proposed Project exercises the city’s
authority to regulate local and
municipal affairs or control over the
lands surrounding an airport,
through the enactment of
ordinances and resolutions. Because
the FAA does not have the authority
to regulate off-airport land uses and
because land use decisions are
often made at the local level, the
City Council is the governmental
authority responsible for the final
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 157 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
land use decision for airport land
use or airport expansion to ensure
long-term compatibility between
the airport and surrounding land
use.
Public Safety Policy 6-P.18 – Ensure that
development in the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Influence Area is
consistent with the land use
compatibility policies contained in
the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP.
The proposed Project is consistent
with the city’s ALUC-approved
General Plan and ALUCP. The
General Plan and ALUCP establishes
criteria limiting the maximum
number of dwellings or people in
areas close to the airport is the
most direct method of reducing the
potential severity of an aircraft
accident.
The Project does not result in
incompatible land uses adjacent to
Palomar Airport. The ALUCP will
continue to be utilized as a plan of
record for new land development
projects near the Palomar Airport.
Deference to the provisions of the
ALUCP ensures strict adherence to
land use measures that protect the
public and minimize their exposure
to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public
airport to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to
incompatible uses. Findings of
consistency with the ALUCP are
required for all discretionary
entitlements (land development
permits) to protect the public from
the adverse effects of aircraft noise,
ensuring that people and facilities
are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents,
and ensure no structures or
activities adversely affect navigable
airspace. Because the ALUCP was
adopted by the ALUC to fulfill the
purpose of set forth in Public
Yes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 158 of 383
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY
Utilities Code § 21670(a)(2),
required compliance with the
ALUPC by its very nature is
consistent with that purpose.
Local agencies have a responsibility to promote compatibility between the airport and the local
community. Coordinated land use compatibility contributes to the well-being of the public it serves,
both economically and by providing essential and desired aviation services. The benefits of land use
compatibility planning extend beyond an airport’s property line and into the surrounding community.
Collaboration between the airport proprietor, local agency, ALUC, and private property owners can
identify compatible uses that support economic development on and around an airport. In Carlsbad,
compatibility planning continues to be reflected in the General Plan in several ways: airport land use
noise policies have been inserted into the Noise Element, safety policies have been placed into a
Safety Element, and the primary compatibility criteria and associated maps plus the procedural
policies are found in the Land Use Element. With this approach, direct conflicts have been eliminated
and a majority of the mechanisms and procedures have been fully incorporated into the city’s General
Plan to ensure compliance. The proposed Project does not significantly change the intent of the use
of the lands or areas surrounding the airport, as it was originally contemplated in the General Plan.
The proposed Project merely restates (rather than changing) existing law and specifies and clarifies
procedures, which must be followed prior to authorizing new or expanded airport land uses/activities,
and thus carries no change in the areas of airport influence or safety zone boundaries depicting
relative risk of aircraft accidents occurring near the airport. The only change is that the proposed code
amendments authorize airport-related uses only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport and
that the decision-making body to consider new or expanded airport land uses shall be the City Council.
It is important to note that a General Plan does not need to be identical with the ALUCP in order to
be consistent with it. To meet the consistency test, a General Plan must do two things: 1) It must
specifically address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning
ordinance or other policy document; and 2) It must avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning
criteria. The city’s ALUC-approved General Plan satisfies both criteria. The General Plan limits noise
and safety impacts by: (1) providing a general description and map of the area that comprises the
Airport Influence Area; (2) showing locations in the airport vicinity where development is planned by
including current general plan and zoning maps (with a preference towards low density structures
near airports); (3) indicating maximum acceptable land use densities and intensities and the manner
in which they are to be measured; (4) showing Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) contours
to be used for planning purposes; (5) indicating maximum normally acceptable exterior noise levels
for new residential and other noise-sensitive land uses; (6) indicating how aircraft overflight noise
concerns are addressed; (7) showing safety zones, aviation easement areas, and overflight notification
areas; and (8) discussing the basic concepts and rationale behind the compatibility policies and
criteria; etc.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 159 of 383
D. Municipal Code
Zoning is one of the primary means of implementing a General Plan. Updating the Zoning Ordinance
offers an opportunity for the city to review the language to ensure internal consistency and to
conform with and be adequate to carry out the General Plan. The designated size, area, or degree of
the mapped airport, as historically designated on the city’s Zoning Map, does not change by any
measurable or quantifiable dimension. Although the city has broad discretion in zoning matters, as
demonstrated above in Section C, the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan have been or
will be met. The Palomar Airport continues to have an Industrial (M) Zone pursuant to the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (“CMC”). The label designating the airport’s location remains superimposed on the
Zoning Map in the same place that it has historically been designated. The only changes are to
incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion,” clarify that airport-related uses
are only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport, and that the decision-making body to
consider new or expanded airport land uses shall be the City Council.
The CMC integrates multiple ordinances and types of codes for public administration, enforcement,
public service, financing, business licensing, health and sanitation, grading and drainage, building and
fire, subdivision, and development regulations (etc.) into one single document. There are 22 Titles
included in the CMC. The proposed Project includes amendments to ensure internal consistency of
the city’s policy and regulatory framework. It is sufficient to designate any ordinance adding to,
amending or repealing a section of the document as an addition or amendment to, or repeal of, the
CMC. The proposed Project does not affect the validity of all remaining portions of the CMC.
Therefore, the Project does not conflict with the CMC.
E. Conformance with Local Coastal Program
A Local Coastal Program consists of two parts: a Coastal Land Use Plan (“LUP”), which details the kinds,
locations, and intensity of land uses, and resource protection and development policies in the Coastal
Zone; and a Coastal Implementation Plan (“IP”), which includes land use zoning and other
implementing ordinances that conform with and carry out LUP policies. The Project proposes
amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which constitute portions of the city’s Local
Coastal Program’s LUP and implementing ordinances (IP), and therefore require that a Local Coastal
Program amendment be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval in
accordance with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§ 30000 et seq.).
Where a project necessitates an amendment to a certified LUP portion of a Local Coastal Program,
the standard of review for the changes is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Where a project
necessitates an amendment to an IP portion of a Local Coastal Program, the standard of review for
proposed changes is that the proposed amendment conforms with and is adequate to implement
provisions of the LUP or the Local Coastal Program. A Local Coastal Program’s LUP and IP should each
be internally consistent, and there should be consistency between them.
The area consisting of the Palomar Airport and adjoining properties are excluded from the Coastal
Zone. However, it is possible that an action to amend the LUP could indirectly or temporarily affect a
coastal resource while that resource is outside of the Coastal Zone. Aviation is a vital link in the local
and national transportation system and plays a significant role in the vitality of the state’s economy.
California’s airports are critical for providing services such as business travel, emergency response,
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 160 of 383
fire suppression, law enforcement, and tourism (including access the coastline). One of the
fundamental goals of the Coastal Act is to provide maximum public access to the coast. This includes
protecting existing public access. The Project would encourage the continued operation of the airport
as a General Aviation Airport, while specifying and clarifying the city’s code requirements and permit
review procedures in the event of a proposal to expand Palomar Airport. The Project does not
threaten the airport’s ability to operate efficiently and serve its function in the local economy or to
continue to provide coastal access.
The overarching goal and intent of the policies in the Local Coastal Program is to ensure that the Local
Coastal Program provides for protection, provision, and enhancement of public access and recreation
opportunities in the city consistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the California Coastal Act.
With respect to land use planning, the city’s LUP includes land use designations and broad land use
policies of the city, including policies that encourage coastal dependent uses, visitor serving uses,
recreational and open space uses, affordable housing, sustainable growth management, etc. The new
proposed policies in this chapter (related to the Project) specify and clarify the city’s code
requirements and permit review procedures for new and expanded airport land uses. Therefore, the
Project does not conflict with Coastal Act provisions regarding public access, scenic views, recreation,
marine environment, land resources, or preservation of steep slopes and habitat. There are also a
number of Local Coastal Program IP amendments that will be processed concurrently with the Project.
Coastal Act § 30513 requires that a Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Maps conform with and be adequate
to carry out the certified LUP. The proposed Project includes conforming amendments to ensure
internal consistency of the city’s policy and regulatory framework. The proposed changes to the IP are
integrated with proposed changes to the LUP. In summary, the LUP changes are consistent with the
applicable policies of the Coastal Act and the LIP changes are consistent with the policies of the LUP.
F. Growth Management (CMC Chapter 21.90)
The Project poses no impact to public facilities because the Project specifies and clarifies the city’s
code requirements and permit review procedures for new and expanded airports. The proposed
Project neither forbids nor authorizes a use or project/activity, nor does it propose amendments to
Chapter 21.90, “Growth Management” or propose any changes to the provisions of the Growth
Management Program, such as the performance standards.
G. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
An ALUC is an advisory committee established by State Law (Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 et seq.).
The ALUC is intended to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of
airports. This is done primarily through their adoption of an ALUCP, against which land use and
planning proposals are compared and evaluated for consistency. ALUCPs are distinct from airport
master plans, ALPs, and other types of airport development plans, but they are closely connected to
them. In contrast to ALPs and airport master plans, the focus of which is normally on on-airport
concerns, ALUCPs mostly address off-airport issues. The major purpose of an ALUCP is to ensure that
incompatible development does not occur on lands surrounding the airport. ALUCPs are required to
reflect the planned airport development and anticipated activity at least 20 years into the future.
The responsibility for preparation and adoption of compatibility plans lies with each county’s ALUC.
The principal connection between the two types of plans stems from the Public Utilities Code. The
statutes require that ALUCPs must be based upon a long-range airport master plan adopted by the
airport proprietor or, if such a plan does not exist or is outdated for a particular airport, an ALP may
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 161 of 383
be used with the acceptance of the Division of Aeronautics. However, the connection works in both
directions so that while an ALUCP must be based upon an airport master plan, the statutes require
that any proposed modification to an airport master plan must be submitted to the ALUC to determine
whether the proposal is consistent with the adopted ALUCP. Provided that the off-airport
compatibility implications of the proposed modifications are adequately addressed in the master plan,
the outcome of this process usually is that the ALUCP will need to be updated to mirror the new
master plan.
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21676(b), when a local agency proposes an amendment of a
General Plan or Zoning Ordinance within the planning boundary established by ALUC, the local agency
must refer the proposed action to the ALUC to determine whether the action is consistent with the
ALUCP. The ALUC must make a decision on the proposed action’s consistency within 60 days from the
date of referral of the proposed action. If the ALUC fails to make a consistency determination within
the 60-day time limit, the proposed action shall be automatically deemed consistent with the ALUCP.
If the ALUC determines that the action is inconsistent with the ALUCP, the local agency may overrule
the Commission by a two-thirds vote. State law indicates that the ALUC serves as a limited “advisory
body” and therefore the local agency has the final authority to make land use decisions within their
jurisdiction.
On Jan. 25, 2010, the Board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (“SDCRAA”), acting in
its capacity as the ALUC for the County, pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 21670.3, adopted an ALUCP
for Palomar Airport based on the 1997 Airport Master Plan. On December 1, 2011, the SDCRAA
amended the ALUCP for Palomar Airport (“2011 ALCUP”), as previously adopted by the San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority on Jan. 25, 2010. In accordance with the approved 2021 Airport
Master Plan, the County is scheduled to pursue near-term, intermediate-term, and long-term actions
(construction and capital projects) for their ground-level facilities. The County received FAA approval
for the ALP(s) on July 10, 2024 (Exhibit 7), which included an ALP for a runway extension of 200 feet
(which was covered by the Dec. 8, 2021 County Board approvals); and an ALP to add a maximum 900-
foot extension (which was not covered by the Dec. 8, 2021 County Board approvals). The County only
recently submitted the 2021 Airport Master Plan and associated ALPs to the SDCRAA for review and
consideration on July 10, 2024. SDCRAA has yet to determine whether the County proposal is
consistent with the 2011 ALUCP, a review and approval process that is required by state law. Given
the nature of the construction and capital improvements, it is anticipated that the Palomar Airport
2011 ALUCP will need to be updated at some point in the future. Until such time that the Palomar
Airport ALUCP is updated, the 2011 ALUCP will continue to be utilized as a plan of record for new land
development projects near the Palomar Airport. Findings of consistency with the 2011 ALUCP are
required for all discretionary entitlements (land development permits processed by the city) to
protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensuring that people and facilities are
not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure no structures or activities
adversely affect navigable airspace
The Palomar Airport is oriented to take advantage of the on-shore winds the runway lies on an east-
west axis. The associated glide path, crash hazard, and noise impact areas around the airport
significantly influence the type and intensity of development across the entire central area of the city.
This area of influence extends generally in a broad band east and west of the runway, and, to a lesser
degree, north and south of the airport. The 2011 ALUCP establishes six safety zones for the purpose
of evaluating safety compatibility of new/future land use actions, which are reflected in General Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 162 of 383
Maps, goals, and policies. According to the 2011 ALUCP, allowable uses and development intensities
range from most restrictive in Safety Zone 1 to least restrictive in Safety Zone 6 (these are
incorporated into and represented in Figure 5-4 of the General Plan Public Safety Element). For
example, all residential and virtually all non-residential uses are considered incompatible land uses in
Zone 1, while all land uses in Zone 6 are either compatible or conditionally compatible with the airport.
Prior to approving any land use actions, the city must refer the proposed land use action to the
SDCRAA for determination of consistency with this 2011 ALUCP. On May 20, 2024, the city referred
the proposed Project to the SDCRAA to review for consistency with the 2011 ALUCP. The matter was
considered by SDCRAA commissioners at a public meeting on July 11, 2024, at which time they
discussed the proposed Project and proposed consistency finding. City staff attended the meeting and
answered questions from the SDCRAA commissioners. The SDCRAA postponed making a decision at
its July 11, 2024 meeting and was unable to reconvene prior to the 60-day time limit so the Project is
automatically deemed consistent per statute. Given that the amendments do not materially affect
allowable land uses and the density or intensity of development regulations and do not have
implications for 2011 ALUCP noise, airspace, or safety compatibility within the areas of airport
influence (Airport Influence Area), the Project is consistent with the 2011 ALUCP. City staff’s
determination is supported by consultation provided by SDCRAA staff.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 163 of 383
January 2, 2024
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Proposed Revisions to the City’s Code and General Plan
Dear Councilmembers:
Our firm represents Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA). As you are well aware, in 2019, the
City Council adopted resolutions 2019-178 and 2019-179 to establish the City of Carlsbad’s
position regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
C4FA seeks to work with the City to reintroduce the proposed ordinance that was released for
public review on January 18, 2018 (Exhibit A), and initially approved but not adopted by the
City, along with additional revisions recommended by our office (Exhibit B), for City Council
consideration (together, “Proposed Ordinance”). Additionally, C4FA presents narrowly-tailored
revisions to the City’s General Plan, for the City’s consideration. (Exhibit C, “Proposed General
Plan Amendment”.)
Together, the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan Amendment would implement the
City Council’s resolutions, absolve any potential inconsistencies in the City Municipal Code, and
memorialize the procedural requirements pursuant to the 1978 Annexation Agreement between
the City and County of San Diego, as detailed in the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA
v. County of San Diego.
Our office conducted extensive research into the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan
Amendment.
In Section I, we first provide a summary of the current requirements under the City’s code. We
then summarize our recommended revisions to the City’s code in Section II, and our
recommended amendment to the General Plan in Section III.
Exhibit 6
Chatten-Brown Law Group, APC
Kathryn Pettit | Associate
325 W. Washington Street, Suite 2193
San Diego, CA 92103
kmp@chattenbrownlawgroup.com
Phone: (619) 393-1440
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 164 of 383
r ~ CHATTEN-BROWN ~~ LAW GROUP
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page 2
I. Current Procedural Requirements
a. Obtainment of a Conditional Use Permit
The Annexation Agreement between the City and County established the City’s zoning and land
use authority over the airport. This includes the requirement that the County must obtain a
conditional use permit (“CUP”) from the City. As the Superior Court recently found:
[T]he County …obtained CUP-172 as a condition of the City of Carlsbad's
annexation of the airport and rezoning of the land for airport use. (citation.)
Notably, the Local Agency Formation Commission stated the following: “In order
to comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, an appropriate
zoning designation must be placed upon the airport, and a Conditional Use Permit
must be obtained by the County. The City of Carlsbad and the County are in
agreement with this procedure.” (citation.) Thus, the evidence in the administrative
record indicates that the County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its
immunities with respect to the airport.
(Superior Court Case No. 37-2018-00057624-CU-TT-CTL, January 26, 2021 Ruling.)
The County’s existing CUP-172 states that “permitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited to
those outlined in Table 1 … approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or
expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.”
(County Resolution 1699 re CUP-172, p.3-5 (1980).) Notably, the CUP-172 specifically omits
runway extensions from uses not requiring discretionary review, indicating that the County must
obtain the City’s approval via the CUP process for any proposed runway extensions.
Thus, a CUP is required for any new or expanded airport uses. We are aware that the County has
not treated “runway extensions” as “expansions.” Therefore, we suggest revising the municipal
code to clarify that the language of “airport expansion” mirrors Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5, to be consistent with the language and intent of CUP-172, as well as state law.
b. City Council Vote
Under our interpretation, the City’s municipal code indicates an intent to require City Council
approval for airport-related CUP requests. Airport uses are designated as “Process 3” throughout
the code, which holds that “[t]he city council shall hear the matter.” (Section 21.42.070.)
However, we identified potential inconsistencies in the code, thus requiring the Proposed
Ordinance to ensure clarity in the process. The Municipal Code provides: “An approved []
conditional use permit may be amended pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.54.125 of this
title. (Section 21.42.110 subd. (E).)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 165 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page 3
Accordingly, Code Section 21.54.125 provides: “any approved development permit may be
amended by following the same procedure required for the approval of said development permit
(except that if the city council approved the original permit, the planning commission shall have
the authority to act upon the amendment) . . .” (emphasis added.)
While the 1980 CUP-172 Resolution only required approval from the Planning Commission, the
Municipal Code currently requires City Council approval for any airport CUP.
Thus, it is not entirely clear what process is currently required for any CUP amendment, even for
a proposed expansion of airport uses under the existing CUP. We believe this necessitates the
Proposed Ordinance, including the new additions proposed by C4FA.
II. Overview of Proposed Ordinance
The ordinance that was proposed by City staff in 2018 proposed the following changes:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance text and define “airport.”
• Allow an airport with approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only
within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport proposed on the City’s Zoning Map.
• Prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the City.
We reviewed the ordinance, and suggested the additional revisions:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance text to clarify the definition of “airport expansion,” consistent
with state law (Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5)
• Prevent the creation of any inconsistencies regarding the process for an amended CUP.
III. Overview of Proposed General Plan Amendment
We also believe that a General Plan Amendment to clearly set forth the process would bring
great advantages to the public and future elected decisionmakers. While there are costs
associated with updating or amending the municipal code and General Plan, a clear
memorialization of the City’s procedures would prevent any confusion, application of the wrong
process, or use of loopholes several years down the road.
The City’s General Plan already includes the following policy:
Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative
action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized
to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate.
(City of Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use & Community Design Element, 2-45; see also Section
21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 166 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page 4
Thus, we believe that the General Plan should be amended to establish the following clear
policies of the City:
• Any airport expansion requires a CUP from the City.
• Expansion will be defined as consistent with the definition in the Public Utilities Code.
• Any CUP request– whether it is for a new CUP or an amendment to a CUP – for airport
expansion requires a City Council vote.
• The City of Carlsbad supports the B-II Enhanced Alternative McClellan Palomar Airport
Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension, and opposes the County
Board of Supervisor’s D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative.
We have included our proposed revisions in Exhibit C (revisions in blue text).
IV. Conclusion
Our office has spent considerable time researching the Proposed Ordinance, which is primarily
the product of research conducted by the City’s prior consultant, KK&R. Our firm only had two
minor proposed revisions. The Proposed Ordinance would implement City Council resolutions
2019-178 and 2019-179, and ensure that the correct procedure is clear in the City’s code.
We also thoroughly believe that a narrow General Plan Amendment is needed to memorialize the
City Council’s resolutions to maintain the airport’s current B-II designation without any runway
extension, as well as the required decision-making process that is set out in the City’s code.
Thank you for your time and consideration of C4FA’s proposal. We respectfully request a
meeting with the City staff to further discuss the Proposed Ordinance and General Plan
Amendment, especially to receive the City’s input.
We are available at your earliest convenience. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pettit
Josh Chatten-Brown
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 167 of 383
Exhibit A
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 168 of 383
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8560 fax
PUBLIC NOTICE
TO INTERESTED PARTIES:
Please be advised that the City of Carlsbad is considering text amendments to its Local Coastal Program
(LCP) as summarized below. This LCP amendment is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad and is
currently under review. This notice hereby opens a six-week review period after which the Planning
Commission and City Council will consider all comments and act on the proposed LCP amendment. The
Planning Commission hearing is expected to take place in spring 2019 and will be duly noticed. The City
Council hearing is expected to take place in spring 2019 and will be duly noticed.
Copies of the LCP amendment are available for review at the following locations: (1) Carlsbad Planning
Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue; (2) City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive; (3) Carlsbad Main
Library, 1775 Dove Lane; (4) Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive; and (5) the California
Coastal Commission, 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-4402. The LCP
Amendment is also posted on the city’s website at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp.
PROPOSED LCP AMENDMENT SUMMARY
LCPA 2018-0001 (PUB 2018-0022) – Zoning Code Amendment – Airports
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City’s LCP. Accordingly, the LCP
amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the City’s proposed amended Zoning Ordinance
and its Local Coastal Program. This specific Zoning Code Amendment is as follows:
The proposed amendment would amend Zoning Ordinance text and define “airport,” allow an airport with
approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport proposed on the City’s Zoning Map, and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other
properties within the City.
Changes proposed to the Zoning Ordinance text are attached. Please note the airport and proposed
boundary around it are outside the Coastal Zone. Further information about McClellan-Palomar Airport
and related City and County actions is available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/residents/airportmasterplan.asp.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, in the Planning Division at (760)
602-4681 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Written comments should be sent to the Planning Division at
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
PUBLISH DATE: January 18, 2018
PUBLISH DATE FOR U-T SAN DIEGO: January 18, 2018
PUBLISH DATE FOR COAST NEWS: January 18, 2018
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 169 of 383
C cityof
Carlsbad
1
Proposed text changes to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21)
Zoning Code Amendment - Airports
ZCA 2018-0001 / ZC2018-0002 / LCPA 2018-0001 (PUB2018-0022)
Amendments to Chapter 21.04 Definitions
Chapter 21.04 (Definitions) is proposed to be amended by adding new Section 21.04.024 to define
“airport” as follows:
21.04.024 Airport
“Airport” means any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off
of aircraft, and any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for airport buildings or other
airport facilities or rights of way, and all airport buildings and facilities located thereon. Airport safety
areas and zones are included within this definition. This definition shall be used by the City when applying
any requirements of the California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.
Amendments to Chapter 21.07 E-A Exclusive Agriculture Zone
Section 21.07.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the E-A, Exclusive Agricultural Zone) is proposed to be
amended by deleting “airports” as follows:
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Amendments to Chapter 21.29 C-T Commercial Tourist Zone
Section 21.29.030 Table A (Permitted uses in the C-T, Commercial Tourist Zone) is proposed to be
amended by deleting “airports” as follows:
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 170 of 383
I I - I I
I I - I I
2
Amendments to Chapter 21.30 C-M Heavy Commercial – Limited Industrial Zone
Section 21.30.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the C-M, Heavy Commercial – Limited Industrial Zone) is
proposed to be amended by deleting “airports” as follows:
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3
Amendments to Chapter 21.32 M Industrial Zone
Section 21.32.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the M, Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended by
changing “airports” to “airport” and by adding Note 3 as follows:
Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 3 below) 3
Notes:
3.Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within
the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
Amendments to Chapter 21.34 P-M Planned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the P-M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
by changing “airports” to “airport” and adding Note 6 as follows:
Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 6 below) 3
Notes:
6.Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within
the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 171 of 383
I I - I I
I -_ I I I I
I -_ I I I I
Exhibit B
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 172 of 383
Additional text changes to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21)
Zoning Code Amendment - Airports
Amendments to Chapter 21.04 (Definitions)
21.04.140.1 Expansion.
“Expansion” means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including the
physical size of the property, building, parking and other improvements. In the context of
airports, “expansion” includes the acquisition of runway protection zones, or of any interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion, construction of a new runway, extension or realignment of an existing runway, or any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for
the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to these purposes.
Amendments to Chapter 21.32 M Industrial Zone
Section 21.32.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the M, Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
by changing “airports” to “airport” and by adding Note 3 as follows:
[No change to Proposed Ordinance’s Table revisions]
Notes:
3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use permit amendment shall also require a vote by the city council,
notwithstanding any other sections of this code, including Sections 21.42.110 and 21.54.125.
Amendments to Chapter 21.34 P-M Planned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the P-M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to
be amended by changing “airports” to “airport” and adding Note 6 as follows:
[No change to Proposed Ordinance’s Table revisions]
Notes:
6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use permit amendment shall also require a vote by the city council,
notwithstanding any other sections of this code, including Sections 21.42.110 and 21.54.125.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 173 of 383
Exhibit C
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 174 of 383
2-45
La
n
d
U
s
e
&
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
2
General Plan
2-P.39 Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or
other legislative action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palo-
mar Airport, unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the
Carlsbad electorate. (Section 21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.)
2-P.40 Require any proposal for an expansion of airport uses to obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to a City Council vote.
2-P.43 Oppose the Mclellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan D-III Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative design classification. (Resolution No. 2019-178.)
2-P.44 Support the B-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
design classification, with no runway extension. (Resolution No. 2019-179.)
2-P.42 Utilize the State Public Utilities Code definition of airport expansion, which
includes the acquisition of runway protection zones, or of any interest in land
for the purpose of any other expansion, construction of a new runway,
extension or realignment of an existing runway, or any other expansion of the
airport's physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are
related to these purposes.
2-P.41 Permit expansion only within the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 175 of 383
Western-Pacific Region
Los Angeles Airports District Office
777 S. Aviation Blvd., Suite 150
El Segundo, CA 90245
July 10, 2024
Jamie Abbott
Director of Airports
County of San Diego
1960 Joe Crosson Drive
El Cajon, CA 92020-1236
Dear Mr. Abbott,
RE: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Conditional Approval for McClellan–
Palomar Airport (CRQ) Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Set; Airspace Case
Study No. 2021-AWP-203-NRA
The Los Angeles Airports District Office (LAX-ADO) completed the final review of the
McClellan–Palomar Airport updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set. Accordingly, a
Conditional Approval is issued for the subject ALP, dated July 10, 2024. A signed copy of
the approved ALP is enclosed.
An aeronautical study, Airspace Case Study No. 2021-AWP-203-NRA was conducted on
the proposed development depicted on the ALP. This determination does not constitute FAA
approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a
determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and
with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.
In making this determination, the FAA considered matters such as the effects the proposal
would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it
would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects
it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that
existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects
within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.
The FAA has only limited means to prevent the construction of structures near an airport.
The airport sponsor has the primary responsibility to protect the airport environs through
such means as local zoning ordinances, property acquisition, avigation easements, letters of
Exhibit 7
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 176 of 383
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
2
the FAA prior to the commencement of the subject development. This ALP approval is also
conditioned on acceptance of the plan under local land use laws. We encourage appropriate
agencies to adopt land use and height-restrictive zoning based on the plan.
Approval of the plan does not indicate that the United States will participate in the cost of
any development proposed. Airport Improvement Program funding requires evidence of
eligibility and justification at the time a funding request is ripe for consideration. When
construction of any proposed structure or development indicated on the plan is undertaken,
such construction requires a normal 45-day advance notification to the FAA for review in
accordance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., Parts 77, 157, 152, etc.).
More notice is generally beneficial to ensure that all statutory, regulatory, technical, and
operational issues can be addressed in a timely manner.
Please attach this letter to the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan and retain it for your
records.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact Justin Guan of my staff at (424) 405-7276 or via email at Justin.Guan@faa.gov.
Sincerely,
Cathryn G. Cason
Manager
Los Angeles Airports District Office
Enclosure: FAA Conditionally Approved ALP
CATHRYN
G CASON
Digitally signed by
CATHRYN G CASON
Date: 2024.07.10
18:53:00 -07'00'
property requiring Federal environmental approval must receive such written approval from
agreement, or other means.
The most notable changes made to this ALP submittal can be found in the letter dated July
10, 2024, as part of the ALP submittal.
This ALP approval is conditioned on the acknowledgment that any development on airport
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 177 of 383
April 23, 2024
The Honorable Keith Blackburn, Mayor, City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT OPERATIONS
Dear Honorable Mayor Blackburn,
On February 27, 2024 (10), the Carlsbad City Council directed City of Carlsbad (City) staff to
propose amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport). The action was taken in response to a request from Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA) by email dated January 3, 2024. As the owner and operator of the Airport, the County of San Diego (County) is providing this letter to address some of the
statements made by C4FA and its legal counsel and to highlight that the County’s limited
authority was previously determined through litigation. It also responds to the City’s request to initiate a meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) dated March 27, 2024.
The County is committed to maintaining a strong working relationship with the City and continues
to take steps to ensure the City and its residents have a voice regarding Airport matters. As
C4FA notes, the County obtained CUP-172 from the City as a condition of the annexation of the Airport into the City. After the FAA rejected the County’s application to establish noise restrictions at the Airport, the County implemented a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP) for the Airport. The County Board of Supervisors has twice amended the Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee (PAAC) Ordinance to increase City representation on the PAAC. County and City
staff established a regular meeting schedule to ensure the City has a chance to provide early input on County Airport projects. Through these and other actions, the County has demonstrated its commitment to including the City and its residents in Airport matters.
Response to C4FA Comments
While we look forward to continuing to develop a positive relationship with the City and its residents, the County would like to address statements in C4FA’s email and attached January 2, 2024 letter from C4FA’s legal counsel. Specifically, C4FA’s legal counsel argues that an
Exhibit 8
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 178 of 383
amendment of CUP-172 is required for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway extension was “specifically omitted” from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172. C4FA’s legal counsel further argues that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of
“airport expansion” in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 which is applicable only to State-
issued airport operating permits. This argument was reviewed and rejected in the January 26, 2021 ruling of the San Diego Superior Court (Court) in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-
2018-00057624-CU-TT-CTL (hereinafter “Ruling”). The Ruling addressed a challenge brought
to the County’s approval on October 10, 2018 of the McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (“Project”). The Project included approval of facilities changes such as the relocation of existing taxiways, installation of an Emergency Materials Arresting System (EMAS), and a runway extension located entirely within existing Airport property. The Court rejected the
assertion that an amendment to CUP-172 is required for the proposed runway extension when
it found, “the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion" and that no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth in the Project.”
This decision is consistent with long-standing understandings reached between the City and
County through regular coordination stretching back decades. In February 1993, the County coordinated with City staff about proposed facilities changes regarding commercial aviation service. In response, by letter dated May 3, 1993, then City Attorney, Ron Ball, explained that improvement of facilities in accordance with Table I of CUP-172 entirely on Airport property
would not require a use permit amendment. Table I of CUP-172 does not “specifically omit”
runway extensions as claimed by C4FA’s legal counsel. Instead, Table 1 provides that, “Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to the operation of the airport and to the control of air traffic in relation thereto, include, but [are] not necessarily limited to, the following:...”
The omission of runways from the subsequent list in Table I of CUP-172 is neither specific nor
limiting because the list is not exclusive. Moreover, the determination of the Court that the Project runway extension is included within Table 1 of CUP-172 is inherently reasonable as it avoids federal preemption issues that would otherwise arise. (See, for example, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 (City ordinance
regulating taxiway and runway relocations preempted by federal law); Twp of Tinicium v. City of
Philadelphia (E.D. PA, 2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 (City ordinance limiting runway extension preempted by federal law).) It is, accordingly, clear that amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” set forth in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 is not, as C4FA asserts, necessary to effectuate the “intent and meaning of
CUP-172.” It is in fact contrary to the meaning of that term as used in CUP-172.
If the City were to nevertheless decide to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinances and General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” contained in Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5, these changes cannot properly be applied to the County. While the County was found in the
Ruling to have waived its immunities under Government Code section 53090 when it obtained
CUP-172, the Ruling did not find that the waiver extends to subsequently enacted City ordinances. Moreover, the Ruling does not address the County’s vested rights under CUP-172.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 179 of 383
Amending the City Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” set forth in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts, to bring City
requirements into compliance with State law. The term “airport expansion” used in Section
21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained, it does not establish a generally applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states in pertinent part that, “As used in this section, “airport expansion” includes...acquisition of runway protection zones...construction of a new runway...[and] extension or realignment of an existing runway….” (Emphasis added.) Since the
definition of airport expansion as used in Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport
permits, the City is free to and has applied its own definition of the term as used in City Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP-172. Condition 8 of CUP-172 states that, “Approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or
expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.” City
Ordinance 21.53.015 enacted by the City Council on August 12, 1980 in response to a voter initiative states in pertinent part that, “The city council shall not approve any zone change, general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the city nor shall the city commence any action or spend any funds preparatory
to or in anticipation of such approvals without having been first authorized to do so by a majority
vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such proposes.” Interpreting the term expansion used in both CUP-172 and Ordinance 21.53.015, the City Attorney concluded in a May 3, 1993 letter that acquisition of property for “clear zone” was not an expansion where it could be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the redesignation or
rezoning of land.
The May 3, 1993 letter was presented to the Court and was a basis for the Ruling agreeing with the County’s interpretation of the term expansion. The County appreciates that C4FA may be dissatisfied with this part of the Ruling, but no appeal was taken, and the decision is final. The
County notes that under FAA Grant Assurance 5 it may “not take or permit any action which
would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers [necessary to comply with its obligations as an airport sponsor] ... and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance....”
City Request for Meeting with FAA
Separately, the County is also acknowledging receipt of a letter from Mr. Chadwick and the City
dated March 27, 2024 requesting that County Airports ask the FAA to convene a community
roundtable “addressing the growing community concerns surrounding aircraft operations at
McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad” and “a perceived increase in aircraft noise and
deviations from the County’s recommended flight procedures.” To facilitate this request, the
County will reach out to Senators Butler and Padilla and Representative Levin to address the
request for a community roundtable with the FAA. The FAA maintains sole authority over flight
safety, patterns, and air traffic control at the Airport. While the County is limited in its ability to
enforce measures beyond the VNAP that are outlined for aircraft operations at the Airport,
County staff would be happy to attend to speak to current airport operations within the County’s
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 180 of 383
jurisdiction. The County accepts federal grant funding from the FAA and is obligated to maintain
the facility as a “public use airport.” The County has no authority over the quantity, type, or flight
track of any aircraft arriving or departing from the Airport, which are under FAA jurisdiction.
However, the County recognizes the concerns of the Airport’s surrounding residents and
communities from a practical standpoint. On December 29, 2021, the County sent a letter to the FAA outlining the Airport’s crucial contribution to the community and region as a transportation hub, an emergency services facility, and an economic driver that supports local jobs and generates millions of dollars in tax revenues and economic activity annually. While recognizing
the contributions of the Airport, the County requested that the FAA respond to the County’s
Board of Supervisors inquiry as to whether mandatory quiet hours could be established at the Airport or if additional fees could be imposed on aircraft operating during the voluntary quiet hours. In a letter dated February 4, 2022, the FAA responded that “imposition of a mandatory quiet hours restriction or additional fees on aircraft operations in an effort to discourage aircraft
operations during a time of day would be inconsistent with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act
(ANCA) of 1990, as amended, and its implementing regulations under 14 CR Part 161, Notice
and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions and is therefore not allowable.” The County thanks the City for its continued commitment to working together to maintain
McClellan-Palomar Airport’s operations as a critical transportation and community hub, while
being good neighbors to the community. Our staff are available to connect on any needed discussions or further inquiries. Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel can be reached at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov and Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports, can be reached at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
DAHVIA LYNCH
Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chairwoman Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe Supervisor Jim Desmond Bill Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports Sarah Aghassi, Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Caroline Smith, Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs The Honorable Priya Bhat-Patel, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Carlsbad District, 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 181 of 383
~~-___,
The Honorable Melanie Burkholder, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 1 The Honorable Carolyn Luna, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 2 The Honorable Teresa Acosta, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 4
Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: February 27, 2024 Carlsbad City Council Agenda Item 10 Staff Report and C4FA Letter Attachment B: March 27, 2024 City of Carlsbad Letter to County of San Diego Request for
Community Roundtable Regarding Aircraft Operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport with
FAA Attachment C: December 29, 2021 County of San Diego Letter to FAA Regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 182 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 183 of 383
(i) S~ff R~port
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Feb. 27, 2024
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2958
CAReview...AL
Subject: Consider Discussing Proposed Revisions to the City's Code and General
Plan Relating to McClellan-Palomar Airport
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Consider a request from Mayor Blackburn to engage in a discussion regarding a request from
Citizens for a Friendly Airport relating to revisions to the City's Code and General Plan relating
to McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Executive Summary
Mayor Blackburn submitted the attached email (Exhibit 1) to the City Manager on Jan. 30, 2024,
requesting that the topics related to Palomar Airport that are contained in the background
information sent by Hope Nelson, on behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport, on Jan. 3, 2024
(Exhibit 2), be placed on an upcoming City Council agenda.1
Fiscal Analysis
No city funding is being requested.
NeKt Steps
Staff will carry out the City Council's direction.
En11ironmental Evaluation
This action does not require environmental review because it does not constitute a project
within the meaning of the california Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code
Section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the
environment or a reasonably foreseeable ind ire ct physical change in the environment.
Exhibits
1. Jan. 30, 2024, request from Mayor Blackburn
2. Jan. 3, 2024, email from Hope Nelson
'Carlsbad Municipal Code Section l.20.060(C) states, "Items of business may be placed on the agenda by any
member of the council, the city manager or the city attorney, or by council action. Council•originated items must
be submitted to the city manager not less than seven days before the date of the council meeting at which the
member desires the item to appear on the agenda. Nothing in this s"'tion precludes a council member from
requesting counell action to pl.ace .an item on th~ agenda for a future meeting."
Feb. 27, 2024 Item 1110 Pagel of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 184 of 383
Sheila Cobian
Subject: RE:
From: Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca .gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 4:49:29 PM
To: Scott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.goV>
Subjett:
Good Afternoon,
Exhibit 1
Consistent with my authority under Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 1.20.060 IC), I am requesting that the topics
related to Palomar Airport that are contained in the background information sent by Hope Nelson on behalf of Cititens
for a friendly Airport on January 3, 2024 be placed on a future agenda for City Council discussion and consideratioll,
Thank you,
Get Outlook for iOS
Feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page 2 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 185 of 383
Sheila Cobian
Subject
Attachments:
FW: A9endizin9 discussion of Palomar Airport
2023-01-02 C4FA Memorandum to City_fnl (1) (1).pdf
From: Hope Nelson <hopefromthehood@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>
Exhibit 2
Cc: Priya Bhat-Patel <Priya.Bhat-Patel @carlsbadca.gov>; Melanie Burkholder <Melanie.Burkholder@carlsbadca.gov>;
Carolyn luna <Carolvn.luna@carlsbadca.gov>; Teresa Acosta <Teresa.Acosta@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Haber
<JM011.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>; Vickey Syage <vickey.svage@gmail.com>; Mary Anne Viney
<maryanneviney@dslextreme.com>; Shirley Anderson <sande,l57S@aol.com>
Subject: Agendizing discussion of Palomar Airport
Dear Mayor Blackbum,
Many thanks for alt you are doing regarding Palomar Airport, and for our discussion.
For clarity, we would like the Council to consider the following in their discussion.
Cornerstones
• "Effective December 29, 1978, Palomar Airport was formally a1111exed to tlte City of
Carlsbad, which will have filtal authority 011 any airfield expansion plans." (Palomar
Airport Summary Report, Jan 1979, General Information)
• San Diego Superior Court reaffirmed the City's responsibility in its January 2021 ruling
in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego.
• The Annexation Agreement and the Court's ruling gives the City of Carlsbad the clear
responsibility to exercise the City's local control of Palomar Airport in the best interests
of Carlsbad.
• The City of Carlsbad Resolutions, passed in 2019, state with cla1ity, the City's position
regarding the Ai1port.
Suggested Implementation Framework
Zoning
.Amend Carlsbad's zoning ordinances to include KK&R's (City's
outside legal counsel} 2018 recommendations.
o These recommendations were initially released for public
review in 2018 and approved but not adopted by the City.
• Adopt the definition of Airport Expansion consistent with the definitions of the
California Utilities Code (CPUC).
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 3 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 186 of 383
o The CPUC is the permitting agency for the Airport.
• Prevent the creation of any inconsistencies regarding the process for an amended
CUP.
oEnsure a City Council vote for any CUP changes or additions.
oResolve any inconsistencies within the City's Municipal Code.
General Plan
• Memorialize procedural requirements to support the Annexation Agreement which
specified Carlsbad's "final authority" and the Court's 2021 ruling, which states that
"the County waived its immunities" .
• Memorialize the City of Carlsbad's official position on the expansion of Palomar
Airport.
Next Steps
• Place the discussion of the Suggested Implementation Framework on the Feb 6,
2024 City Council Agenda
• Direct staff to return to the City Council within 60 days for the City Council
discussion and potential action.
Documents from C4FA's attorneys are attached for your review. We provide them in the
interest of sharing research.
If the City of Carlsbad adopts these suggested changes, many recommended by their outside
counsel KK&R, our City Council will be able to ensure that the City's local control is honored
for generations to come.
Respectfully,
Hope Nelson, on behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport
2
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page4 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 187 of 383
r 8 CHATTEN•BROWN V"~ LAW GROUP
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 2, 2024
Chatten-Brown Law Group, APC
Kathryn Pettit I Associate
32~ W. Washington Street, Suite 2193
San Diego. CA 92103
lonp@chattenbrownlawgroup.com
Phone: (619) 393,1440
Re: Proposed Revisions to the City's Code and General Plan
Dear Councilmemhers:
Our finn represents Citizens for a friendly Airport (C4FA). As you are well aware, in 2019, the
City Council adopted resolutions 2019-178 and 2019-179 to establish the City of Carlsbad's
position regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
C4FA seeks to work with the City 10 reintroduce the proposed ordinance that was released for
public review on January 18, 2018 (Exhibit A). and initially approved but not adopted by the
City, along with additional revisions recommended by our office (Ex hi hit 8), for City Council
consideration (together, "Proposed Ordinance''). Additionally, C4FA presents narrowly-tailored
revisions to the City's General Plan, for the City"s consideration. (Exhibit C, "Proposed General
Plan Amendment".)
Together, the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan Amendment would implement the
City Council's resolutions. absolve any potential inconsistencies in the City Municipal Code, and
memorialize the procedural requirements pursuant to the 1978 Annexation Agreement between
the City and County of San Diego, as detailed in the San Diego Superior Cou11·s ruling in C4FA
v. County of San Diego.
Our office conducted extensive research into the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan
Amendment.
In Section I, we first provide a summary of the current requirements under the City's code. We
then summari7.e our recommended revisions to the City's code in Section 11, and our
r~ommended amendment to the General Plan in Section Ill.
Feb. 27, 2024 ttem #10 Page 5 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 188 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page2
I. Current Procedural Requirements
a. Obtainment of a Condjtjonal Use Pennit
The Annexation Agreement between the City and County established the City's zoning and land
use authority over the airport This includes the requirement that the County must obtain a
conditional use pennit ("CUP") from the City. As the Superior Court recently found:
[T)hc County ... obtained CUP-172 as a condition of the City of Carlsbad's
annexation of the airpon and re:coning of the land for airport use. (citation.)
Notably, the Local Agency Fonnation Commission stated the following: "In order
to comply with the requirements ofthc Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, an appropriate
zoning designation must be placed upon the airport, and a Conditional Use Pennit
must he obtained by the County. The City of Carlsbad and the County are in
agreement with this procedure." (citation.) Thus, the evidence in the administrative
record indicates that the County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its
immunities with respect to the airport.
(Superior Court Case No. 37-2018-000S7624-CU-TT-CTL, January 26, 2021 Ruling.)
The County's existing CUP-172 states that "permitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited to
those outlined in Table l ... approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table I and/or
expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Pcnnit."
(County Resolution 1699 re CUP-I 72, p.3-5 (1980).) Notably, the CUP-172 specifically omits
runway extensions from uses not requiring discretionary review, indicating that the County mus1
obtain the City's approval via the CUP process for any proposed runway extensions.
Thus, a CUP is required for any new or expanded airport uses. We are aware that the County has
not treated "runway extensions" as "expansions .• , Therefore, we suggest revising the municipal
code to clarify that the language of"airport expansion" mirrors Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5, to be consistent with the language and intent ofCUP-172, as well as state law.
b. City Council Vote
Under our interpretation, the City's municipal code indicates an intent 10 require City Council
approval for airport-related CUP requests. Airport uses are designated as "Process 3" throughout
the code, which holds that "[t)he city council shall hear the matter." (Section 21.42.070.)
However, we identified potential inconsistencies in the code, thus requiring the Proposed
Ordinance to ensure clarity in the process. The Municipal Code provides: "An approved [)
conditional use permit may be amended pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.54.125 of this
title. (Section 21.42.110 subd. {E).)
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 6of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 189 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page 3
Accordingly, Code Section 21.54.125 provides: "any approved development permit may be
amended by following the same procedure required.for the approval of said developmelll permit
(except that if the city council approved the original pcnnit, the planning commission shall have
the authority to act upon the amendment) ... " (emphasis added.)
While the 1980 CUP-172 Resolution only required approval from the Planning Commission, the
Municipal Code currently requires City Council approval for any airport CUP.
Thus, it is not entirely clear what process is currently required for any CUP amendment, even for
a proposed expansion of airport uses under the existing CUP. We believe this necessitates the
Proposed Ordinance, including the new additions proposed hy C4F A.
II. Overview of Proposed Ordinante
The ordinance that was proposed by City staff in 2018 proposed the following changes:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance text and define "airport."
• Allow an airport with approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only
within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport proposed on the City's Zoning Map.
• Prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the City.
We reviewed the ordinance, and suggested the additional revisions:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance text to clarify the definition of"airpo11 expansion," consistent
with state law (Public Utilities Code Section 21664.S)
• Prevent the creation of any inconsistencies regarding the process for an amended CUP.
Ill. Overview of Proposed General Plan Amendment
We also believe that a General Plan Amendment to clearly set forth the process would bring
greal advantages to the public and fomre elected decisionmaken:. While there are costs
associated with updating or amending the municipal code and General Plan, a clear
memorialization of the City's procedures would prevent any confusion, application of the wrong
process, or use of loopholes several years down the road.
The City's General Plan already includes the following policy:
Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative
action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized
to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate.
(City of Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use & Community Design Element, 2-4S; see also Section
21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.)
Feb. 27, 20:24 Item #10 Page 7 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 190 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page4
Thus, we believe that the General Plan should be amended to establish the following clear
policies of the City:
• Any airport expansion requires a CUP from the City.
• Expansion will be defined as consistent with the definition in the Public Utilities Code.
• Any CUP request-whether it is for a new CUP or an amendment to a CUP -for airport
expansion requires a City Council vote.
• The City of Carlsbad supports the 8-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan Palomar Airport
Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension, and oppo~es the County
Board of Supervisor's D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Altemative.
We have included our proposed revisions in Exhibit C (revisions in blue text).
JV. Conclusion
Our office has spent considerable time researching the Proposed Ordinance, which is primarily
the product of research conducted by the City's prior consultant, KK&R. Our finn only had two
minor proposed revisions. The Proposed Ordinance would implement City Council resolutions
2019-178 and 2019-179, and ensure that the correct procedure is clear in the City's code.
We also thoroughly believe that a narrow General Plan Amendment is needed to memorialize the
City Council's resolutions to maintain lhe airport's current B-11 designation without any runway
extension, as well as the required decision-making process that is set out in the City's code.
Thank you for your time and consideration ofC4FA 's proposal. We respectfully request a
meeting with the City staff to further discuss the Proposed Ordinance and General Plan
Arnendmenl, especially to receive the City's input.
We are available at your earliest convenience. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pettit
Josh Chatten-Brown
Feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page8 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 191 of 383
Exhibit A
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 9 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 192 of 383
PU8UCNOnCE
TO INTERESTED PARTIES:
C cityof
Carlsbad
Please be advised that the City of Carlsbad is considering text amendments to its Local Coastal Program
(LCP) as summarized below. This LCP amendment is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad and is
currently under review. This notice hereby opens a six-week review period after which the Planning
Commission and City Council will consider all comments and act on the proposed LCP amendment. The
Planning Commission hearing is expected to take place in spring 2019 and will be duly noticed. The City
Council hearing Is expected to take place in spring 2019 and will be duly noticed.
Copies of the LCP amendment are available for review at the following locations: (l) Carlsbad Planning
Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue; (2) City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive; (3) Carlsbad Main
library, 1775 Dove lane; {4) Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive; and (5) the California
Coastal Commission, 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-4402. The LCP
Amendment is also posted on the city's website at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp.
PROPOSED LCP AMENDMENT SUMMARY
tcPA 2018-0001 (PUB 2018-0022) -Zoning Code Amendment -Alrporu
The City's Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City's LCP. Accordingly, the LCP
amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the City's proposed amended Zoning Ordinance
and its local Coastal Program. lhis specific Zoning Code Amendment is as follows:
The proposed amendment would amend Zoning Ordinance text and define "airport," allow an airport with
approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport proposed on the City's Zoning Map. and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other
properties within the City.
Changes proposed to the Zoning Ordinance text are attached. Please 110te the airport and proposed
boundary around it are outside the Coastal Zone. Further information about McClellan-Palomar Airport
and related City and County actions is available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/resiclents/airportmasterplan.asp.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, in the Planning Division at (760)
602-4681 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Written comments should be sent to the Planning Division at
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
PUBLISH DATE: January 18, 2018
PUBLISH DATE FOR U·T SAN OIEGO:
PUBLISH DATE FOR COAST NEWS:
Community & Economic Development
Plannlng Division
January 18, 2018
January 18, 2018
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad. CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760·602-8560 fax
Feb. 27, 2024 Item 1110 Page 10 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 193 of 383
Proposed teKt changes to the Carlsbad Municipal Code {Title 21)
Zoning Code Amendment • Airports
ZCA 2018-0001 / ZC2018·0002 / lCPA 2018-0001 {PU82018·0022)
Amendments to Chapter 21.04 Definitions
Chapter 21.04 (Definitions) is proposed to be amended by adding new Section 21.04.024 to define
"airport" as follows:
21.04.0.24 Airport
"Airport" means any area of land or water which is used. or intended for use. for the landing and take-off
of aircraft. and any appurtenant areas which are used. or intended for use. for airport buildings or other
airport facilities or rights of way. and all airport buildings and facilities located thereon. Airport safety
areas and zones are included within this definition. This definition shall be used by the City when applying
any requirements of the California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.
Amendments to Chapter 21.07 E-A Exclusive Agriculture Zone
Section 21.07.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the E-A, Exclusive Agricultural Zone) is proposed to be
amended by deleting "airports" as follows:
Use
Amendments to Chapter 21.29 C-T Commercial Tourist Zone
Section 21.29.030 Table A (Permitted uses in the C-T, Commercial Tourist Zone) is proposed to be
amended by deleting "airports" as follows:
Use
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10
1
Page 11 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 194 of 383
Ameridments to Chapter 21.30 C-M Heavy Commercial -limited Industrial Zon~
Section 21.30.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the C·M, Heavy Commercial -limited Industrial Zone) is
proposed to be amended by deleting "airports• as follows:
Use
Amendments to Chapter 21.32 M Industrial Zone
Section 21.32.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the M. Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended by
changing "airports" to "airport" and by adding Note 3 as follows:
Use p CUP Ace
Airports (see note 3 below) 3
Notes:
3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within
the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map oflhe city.
Amendments to Chapter 21.34 P-M Planned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.020 Table A (Permitted uses In the P-M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
by changing ".iirports" to "airport" and adding Note 6 as follows:
Use p CUP Ace
Airports (see note 6 below} 3
Notes:
6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within
the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10
2
Page 12 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 195 of 383
Exhibit B
Feb. 27, 2024 Item 1110 Page 13 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 196 of 383
Additional text changes to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 21)
Zoning Code Amendment -Airporls
Amendments to Chapter 21.04 (Definitions)
21.04.140.1 Expansion.
"Expansion'' means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including the
physical size of lhe property, bui !ding. parking and other improvements. In the contexl of
airports, "expansion" includes the acquisition of runway protection zones, or of any interest in
land for the purpose of any other expansion, construction of a ncw runway, extension or
realignment of an existing runway. or any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for
the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to these purposes.
Amendments lo Chapter 21.32 M Industrial Zone
Section 21.32.0I0TableA (Permitted uses in the M, Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
by changing "airports" to "iiirport" and by adding Note 3 as follows:
(No change to Proposed Ordinance's Table revisions}
Notes:
3. Pennitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use pem1it amendment shall also require a vote by the city council.
notwithstanding any other sections of lhis code, including Sections 21.42.1 I◊ and 21.54.125.
Amendments to Chapter 21.34 P-M l'lanned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.020TableA (Pcnnitted uses in the P-M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to
be amended by changing "airports" to "airport" and adding Note 6 as follows:
(No change to Proposed Ordinance's Table revisions]
Notes:
6. Pcnnitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use pcnnit amendment shall also require a vote by the city council,
notwithstanding any other sections of this code. including Sections 21.42.110 and 21.54.125.
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 14 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 197 of 383
Exhibit C
Feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page 15 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 198 of 383
2•P39 Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or
ottier legislative action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palo-
mar Airport, unless autl,orized to do so by a majority vote of the
Carlsbad electorate. (Section 21.53.01S, Carlsbad Municipal Code.}
2-P.4-0 Require .1.ny propo$al for an expansion of airpon uses 10 obtain a cooditit')n,I u~c-p~rmit
pursuant to a City Council vote.
,2 .. P.41 Permit e)(p3nsion ol\fy within tlu: curcc-ol boundary or McClellan-Palomar Afrpott.
2-P.42 Uciliu the State Public Vtiliti<:s Code de-finition of airport expansion, which
indudes tl,e acqui~ition of runway prot<:Ction zones, or of any ,nterest in land
for the purpo~ ()f any other expansion. construction of a new runway.
~xten~ion or r<:alignment of an existing ruM.,.ay, or any other expansiou vf thc-
airporfs physical facilities for lht purpose of ac~omplishio& or whlch are
related to 1hese-purposes.
2-P,43 Oppose 1he Mclellan -J'alomar Airport Ma<l<r Pl,n D-11! MoJiftcd Standards
Compliance Altfrnati\•e-design dassifk2tion. (Resolulivn Nv. 2019-178.)
l•P.44 Support the B·l l cnhal\ced Ahernaiive McCldlan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
d~sign classifie1tion. with no runw.ay extension. (Re~olution Nn. 20 t9-179.)
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10
General Plan
Page 16 of 16 2-45
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 199 of 383
March 27, 2024
Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports
County of San Diego -Airports Administration
1960 Joe Crosson Drive
El Cajon, CA 92020
(city of
Carlsbad
SUBJECT: Request for Community Roundtable on Aircraft Operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport
Dear Mr. Abbott:
I am writing to formally request that San Diego County Airports submit a proposal to the Federal
Aviation Administration to convene a community roundtable aimed at addressing the growing
communit y concerns surrounding aircraft operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad.
As you are aware, Palomar Airport's operations directly impact the residents and quality of life in the
City of Carlsbad. Therefore, it is important that the city, county, and FAA collaborate to address the
community's concerns and work towards sustainable solutions.
During recent discussions with county staff, and through public comments made at the
March 21, 2024, meeting of the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee, city staff have shared t he city's
position that there is a pressing need to address a perceived increase in aircraft noise and deviations
from the county's recommended flight procedures.
While the county recommends adherence to Palomar Airport's "Fly Friendly" 24-Hour Voluntary Noise
Abatement Procedures, it is evident that community members feel these procedures are not being
followed consist ently. This disconnect between recommended procedures and actual operations
underscores the necessity for a collaborative effort to align stakeholder expectations and reconcile
differences to mitigate noise impacts where possible.
The City of Carlsbad acknowledges that t he FAA maintains sole authority over flight safety and air
traffic control procedures at Palomar Airport. Through the proposed community roundtable, we aim
to identify areas of concern and explore opportunities for cooperation to address the community's
concerns while ens·uring safe and efficient airport operations.
The city stands ready to work alongside the county and FAA to engage airport stakeholders in a
meaningful dialogue. I urge you to consider this request and take proactive steps towards convening
the proposed community roundtable. Together, we can work towards a solution that balances the
needs of all stakeholders while preserving the quality of life for Carlsbad residents.
City of Carlsbad City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • 442-339-2820
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 200 of 383
nk you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and cooperation
dressing this pressing issue.
Scott Chadwick
City Manager
cc: County of San Diego Board of Supervisors
Sarah Aghassi, Interim Chief Administrative Officer -County of San Diego
Palomar Airport Advisory Committee Members
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla
U.S. Senator Laphonza Butler
U.S. Congressman Mike Levin
Larri Frelow, Community Engagement Officer -FAA Western Pacific Region Administrator's Office
John Otto, Airport Manager (McClellan-Palomar Airport)
City of Carlsbad City Council
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
City of Carlsbad City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • 442-339-2820
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 201 of 383
SARAH E. AGHASSI
oePUJY CM!eF .O.0MINlSYRATIVE OFflCE~
December 29, 2021
Mark McClardy, Director
LAND use ANO ENVIRONMENT GROUP
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. ROOM 212. SAN o,eoo. CA 92101
(619)!>31-6256
WWW .sct~O\l"tv. c; 21. 90Y /ltJ e:o
Office of Airports, Western-Pacific Region
Federal Aviation Administration
777 S. Aviation Blvd, Ste. 150
El Segundo, CA 90245
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT NOISE CONCERNS
Dear Mr. McClardy,
Earlier this month the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Masterplan, including lengthening of the runway and safety enhancements. I am
reaching out to you on behalf of the County of San Diego (County)with a request that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) work with us to address ongoing aircraft noise concerns at
McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport.
Palomar is owned and operated by the County and located in the city of Carlsbad. It is a
transportation hub, an emergency services facility, an economic driver that supports local jobs
and generates millions of dollars in tax revenues annually.
While recognizing the contributions of Palomar. it is also important for our agencies to consider
community concerns and work together to resolve these issues to the extent possible as good
neighbors. The most frequent and persistent concem at Palomar is aircraft noise. especially
during the night. Members of the community have shared how nighttime aircraft noise has
affected their quality of life, including how chronic sleep disruptions have had negative effects
on childhood learning, job perfonnance, health, and wellbeing.
Based on recent studies completed by the County, aircraft noise does not exceed the technical
threshold the FAA considers significant. However, from a practical standpoint, aircraft noise at
night remains a community concern, one that impacts quality of life. In response. the County
Board of Supervisors has asked if mandatory quiet hours can be established at Palomar or if
additional fees can be imposed on aircraft operating during voluntary quiet hours. Since answers
to these questions are within the purview of the FAA. we are seeking your response to these
requests and any additional guidance you may have on solutions to the noise concerns.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 202 of 383
Mr. McClardy
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
December 20, 2021
Page 2
If you would like details on the noise studies and/or the measures the County is currently
employing to address these concerns, please contact Cameron Humphres, Director of Airports,
with the Department of Public Works at (619} 318-7091.
The County thanks you for your continued commitment to providing a safe and efficient
aerospace system across the country, and we look forward to your response on how we can
work in partnership to better address community concerns related to aircraft noise.
Sincerely,
s~~
SARAH E. AGHASSI
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nathan Fletcher, Chair
Supervisor Nora Vargas, Vice Chair
Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer
Supervisor Jim Desmond
Cameron Humphres, Director of Airports
Caroline Smith, Director, Office of Strategy and Intergovernmental Affairs
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong
Cc:hope nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson
Subject:CUP - 172
Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2024 10:41:55 AM
Attachments:1980 Signed CUP 172.pdf1979 County Requested CUP 172.12.pdf
Hi Mike,
Attached, please find a copy of the 1979 County’s requested CUP-172 (which includes runways - Item #1 - on the
list of items that don’t need a CUP amendment) and the 1980 CUP that was signed and put into place by the City of
Carlsbad - which omits the runways from the “exception” list.
Changes to the runways and RPZ’s are supposed to be part of the CUP process, but would require action on the part
of the City of Carlsbad, as they were intentionally removed from the “Exception” list. Hope this helps
The files are named descriptively.
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 203 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 204 of 383
. ,,
. -"
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
• •
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1699
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CON-
DITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING
PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALO~.AR AIR
PORT ROAD AND EL CA.MINO REAL.
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
CASE' NO: • • cup·-172 •
WHEREAS, verified application has been filed with the
of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day of September,
1980, hold a duly noticed to consider said application on
property described as:
That portion of Palomar Airport lying within Lot "G" of
Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 823, led in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
rel a ting to CUP-17 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CUP-172, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
PC RESOL #1699
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 205 of 383
...
J.
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
• •
Findings:
1)
2)
3)
4)
That the requested use is compatible with existing uses or
to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is to be located.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the use.
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping,
and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to
existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate
to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
Conditions
1)
2)
3)
I 4)
5)
6)
Approval is granted for CUP-172 as shown on Exhibit "A",
dated January 14, 1980 and Table 1 dated September 24,
1980, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
This project is approved upon the express condition that
building permits will not be issued for development of
the subject property unless the City Engineer determines
that sewer facilities are available at the time of appli-
cation for such sewer permits and will continue to be
available until time of occupancy.
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed
in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department
prior to installation of such signs.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. Loca-
tion of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning
Department.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall
be architecturally integrated and shielded from view from
adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the
Planning Department and Building Department.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with
all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli-
cable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
PC RESOL #1699
-2-
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 206 of 383
• ••
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
• • 7) At the conclusion of the CPO Palomar Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and the San Diego County Airport Noise and Land
Use Compatibility study, the Planning Director shall bring
this application back to the Planning Commission for their
review. At that time, the Planning Commission has the
discretion to set the matter back to public hearing where
they may add, amend or delete any conditions relating to
the airport use and development standards.
8) The permitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited to those
as outlined in Table 1, dated September 24, 1980, and
incorporated herein by reference. Approval of any uses
not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or expansion of
the airport facility shall require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
9} Unless otherwise stated herein, all rules and regulations
of the M Zone shall apply.
10) This Conditional Use Permit is expressly conditioned
upon the approval of ZC-208 by the City Council.
11) The existing designation of the airport as a General
Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall not change unless
an amendment to this CUP is approved by the Planning Com-
mission.
12) At the time of the issuance of any building permits for
new construction or alterations to existing structures, each
private individual lessee shall pay a public facility fee
pursuant to City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29,
1979, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
on the 24th day of September, 1980, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner Schick, Jose, Larson, Leeds, Friestedt,
and Rombotis.
None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN: None.
PC RESO #1699 -3-
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 207 of 383
TABLE l
September 24, 1980
I. The following uses are permitted by this Conditional
Use Permit without the need for additional discretion-
ary review:
a. Structures and Facilities
Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to
the operation of th~ air~ort and to the· control ot air
traffic in relation thereto, include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the follo~ing:
{l) Taxiways and parking aprons, including lighting.
(2} Aircraft hangars, tie-down areas and maintenance
buildings.
l3) Air traffic control towers and facilities.
(4} Navigational aid equipment and structures.
(5} Airport administration buildings, ·which may also
include airport passenger terminal facilities.
(6}. Airport passenger terminal buildings and airtels,
and· facilities which may include as uses inci-
dental thereto, consumer service establishments,
including automobile rentals, retail shops norm-
~lly operated for the convenience of the users of
terminal fa•cilities.
(}) Heliports.
(8) Aviation fuel farms.
(9.}. Automobile parking· lots and structures.
(10) Buildings for housing operations and equipment
necessary to the maintenance, security and safety
of the airpo:i;:-t.
b. Commercial hctivities
Commercial aviation activities as. follm·1~:
(1) Aviation flight and ground schools, including
pilot and student equipment sales.
(2) Aircraft sales, including radio and navigational
equipment, parts, supplies and accessory equip-
ment.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 208 of 383
e
(3) Aircraft hangar and tie-down rentals.
(4) Aircraft leasing, rental and charter.
(5) Airframe, engine, radio, navigational and acces-
sory equipment repair, maintenance and modifica-
tion.
(6) Aircraft ground support equipment repair, main-·
tenance and modification.
(7} Aircraft cleaning services.
(8) Aircraft painting.
{9) 1~viation fuel facilities.
(10) Aircraft and engine mechanic schools.
(11) Airlines, scheduled and non-scheduled.
(12) Air taxi and air ambulance services.
(13} Air freight terminals and trans-shipment facilities.
{14) Aerial crop dusting and spraying· enterprises.
(15) Aerial fire fighting.
{16) Aerial photography and surveying.
(17) Parachute rigging sales and s~rvice.
II. The following uses are allowed if the Planning Com-
mission determines that they are consistent with
·the airport facility:
a. Incidental eating and drinking establishments
b. Incidental commercial, professional office and/or
industrial uses not specifically mention in Sec-
tion I a and b provided that such uses are permitted
in and are consistent with"the intent of the M Z~ne.
III. The following uses are allowed if the Planning Director
• determines they are consistent with and related to the
airport facility:
· nn: j t
a. Signs -Identification, directional and safety
signs.
b. A single-family dwelling occupied exclusively by a
caretaker or superintendent of such use and his
family.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 209 of 383
R. J MASSMAN -·-Director
Offices of
J •. •
CWNTY OF SAN DI L~O
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY
Bldg 2, 5555 Overland Ave.
San Diego. Coliforn ia 9 2123
Telephone: (714) 565-5177
County Engineer & Road Commissioner
County Surveyor
County Airports
December 3, 1979
TO: Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
FROM:
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
R. J. Massman, Director of Transportation
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, Calif. 92123
SUBJECT: Rezone and Conditional Use Permit, Palomar Airport
Submitted herewith are applications for rezone and Conditional
Use Permit covering 268 acres of property and the existing
facilities of Palomar Airport. The applications are submitted
pursuant to Board of Supervisors action 117, November 28, 1979,
copy attached.
These applications are submitted in accordance with Board of
Supervisors Policy F-20, copy attached. This policy requires
that County staff consult with planning agencies within whose
jurisdiction the County facility is located and give appropriate
consideration to normal zoning and improvement requirements of
those agencies.
As you know, prior to annexation of Palomar Airport by the
city this property was zoned County M-2 and the airport was
operated under County Special Use Permit P77-73. The city
zoning of L-C placed on the airport at the time of annexation
is not appropriate to the airport function. The development
of a mutually acceptable Conditional Use Permit is appropriate
to airport operation and the future development of existing
airport property.
These applications deal with the existing airport only. They
do not include expansion as proposed in the Palomar Airport
Master Plan. Per previous County/Carlsbad staff discussions
there are a number of statutory requirements with respect to
the proposed expansion under the master plan which have yet to
be completed. Pending final decision as to whether or not
expansion is to proceed the land use status of the existing
airport should be resolved, with future amendment if the
expansion plan is implemented.
(j)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 210 of 383
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad -2-
---·
December 3, 1979
Attached for your information is a summary of normal land uses
which exist or can be expected at Palomar Airport. The
Conditional Use Permit should include these uses and permit
the construction of new facilities and modification of
existing facilities for these uses subject to normal building
permit process.
Reference the attached Property Record Drawing, future develop-
ment of Parcels 78-0943A, 77-0206A, 77-0207A, 71-0936A, and
79-1235A is anticipated. These parcels are not leased at
present.
If development of any unleased parcel is proposed in the future
for a use not presently identified, additional land use actions
would be required.
As noted on the Plot Plan, the parcels south of Palomar Airport
Road may be utilized for non-aviation purposes in the future.
A motel/recreation center development on Parcel 78-1234A is
currently under consideration and has been the subject of
separate correspondence to your office.
The County Animal Shelter is an existing non-aviation use on
airport property south of Palomar Airport Road.
All other parcels at Palomar are on existing long-term aviation
leases which allow lessees to undertake additional construction
and/or modification of existing structures for permitted uses.
Phil Safford, Palomar Airport Manager, is designated as
Department of Transportation contact point for the processing
of these applications.
-ef:!_,/_ MASSMAN
tfe~tor of Transportation
RJM:PRS :bw
Attachments (2)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 211 of 383
_JLJNTY OF SAN t71tGO .
• R J MASSMAN -·-Director .
Office• of
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY
Bldg 2, 5555 Overland Ave.
San Diego. Colilornio 9212)
Telephone: (714) 565·5177
County Engineer & Rood Commiuioner
County Surveyor
Co.,nly Airport,
November 9, 1979
TO: Board of Supervisors (A45)
FROM: Director of Transportation (0320)
SUBJECT: Local Zoning Requirements, Palomar Airport
As a result of the annexation of Palomar Airport by the
City of Carlsbad consideration of local zoning requirements
of the city with respect to operation and development of
existing airport land is necessary. Prior to annexation
the airport was operated under a County Special Use Permit
with M-2 Industrial zoning. Pre-annexation zoning of
airport property by the city changed County M-2 to City LC.
The Carlsbad Planning Director has now suggested that
County request rezone to M Industrial and obtain an airport
conditional use permit from the city. Staff believes that
this action is appropriate to the future operation and
development of the airport and is consistent with Board
Policy F-20, which requires staff to consult with local
planning agencies, give appropriate consideration to the
normal zoning and improvement requirements, and conform
with reasonable requirements. It is my
RECOMMENDATION: that your Board
1. Authorize the Director of Transportation to submit
appropriate applications _to the City of Carlsbad
for rezone and conditional use permit for Palomar
Airport.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 212 of 383
Board of Supervisors· -2-November 9, 1979
2. Direct that a report containing staff reconnnendations
with respect to Conditional Use Permit, as proposed
·by the City of Carlsbad, be submitted to your Board
for review and approval.
Discussion:
The recon:mended actions with respect to local zoning should
facilitate coordination of future County and City actions
relating to new development and improvement of existing
facilities on Palomar Airport. Although, in general, County
is not legally bound by the requirements of local planning
agencies, as noted in Board Policy F-20, the nature of
airport development by private investors under County land
lease is unique. County/City agreement on procedures relative
to such lease development is appropriate. County or FAA
construction projects, on the other hand, require different
considerations.
Staff is presently formulating and will shortly docket
recommendations with respect to actions required precedent
to the proposed addition of a second runway at Palomar
under the Master Plan. Local zoning requirements and
general plan amendment are among the considerations which
will be addressed. If the second runway project receives
all necessary local, FAA and State approvals, amendment to
the conditional use permit will be required in the future.
In view of the indeterminate schedule for
approval process, however, staff believes
of land use requirements for the existing
undertaken at this time.
t( ~SSMAN
completion of the
that clarification
airport should be
CONCURRENCES~
~~tor of Transportation Ruben Dominguez, ACAO
Reviewed 15y;---Not needed:l
CAO
Counsel
Auditor ~
0MB
Purchasing ----
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 213 of 383
Board of Supervisors -3-November 9, 1979
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Program: Airports
There are no direct costs associated with this action.
Costs may result from improvement requirements of the city
under the proposed conditional use permit. Such costs, if
any, will be addressed in report to your Board per recom-
mendation 2.
ADVISORY BOARD STATEMENT: Continuation of existing program.
Advisory Board Statement not necessary.
BOARD POLICY APPLICABLE: F-20, Location of County Facilities
RJM: PRS :bw
cc: Ruben Dominguez, ACAO (A249)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 214 of 383
I I
(
' i
iunty of San Diego,.Calif 1ia -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Subject
Location of County Facilities
Purpose
Policy Number
F-20
Page
1 of 2
I
To establish a Board of Supervisors policy to guide the process of • I
locating County facilities. The policy will allow sufficient time for
public response to an announcement of proposed property acquisition and i
procedure will provide the Board with the opportunity to receive,
consider and act upon informational input from its staff, public
agencies and interested citizens on the geographic location of County
facilities proposed to be constructed, purchased or leased.
Background
The specific use of a County facility in a specific geographic location
has a particular impact on the community in which it is located.
Facilities providing a social service are of interest not only to the
entire County, but are of special concern to the residents of the areas
in which they are located. Although, in general, County projects are
not legally bound by the requirements of local zoning ordinances, it
is desirable that the appropriate local planning agencies, the local
administrators, the local residents and the Supervisor in whose district
the facility is proposed have an opportunity to become fully informed
and to participate appropriately in the process.
Policy
It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors that:
l.
2.
County staff will consult with the planning agencies within whose
jurisdiction the proposed facility is to be located and will
give appropriate consideration to the normal zoning and improve-I
ment requirements of those activities in formulating its recom-
mendations for the proposed facility. Project development shall
conform with all reasonable requirements of such agencies. I
The Chief Administrative Officer shall notify in writing the
Council (through the City Manager) of a city in or near which the J
County proposes to locate a facility. Notification shall be given·
for each project at the time that the general scope and desired
location have been determined. '
With reference tosocial service facilities, when County staff
has sufficient information to establish a need for such a facility
in a specific supervisorial district and is able to provide infor-
mation on the proposed size of the facility, the nature of the
service progr~m and its estimated general impact on the community,
such information shall be provided to the Supervisor in whose
district the facility is proposed.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 215 of 383
l
(
(
(
r~unty of San ·oiego,•Califo~nia
• ·---BOARD OF SUPERVISQRS POL..,u1.
Subject
Location of County Facilities
Policy Number
F-20
Page
2 of 2
When staff has identified a specific site desired for the facility.
it shall notify the Supervisor in whose district the site is
located and provide a recommendation a~ to the desirability of
providing for a public hearing.
If the County Supervisor whose district may be affected by the
proposed facility determines that a public meeting should be
l I
called to afford local residents an opportunity to present their
views, the Supervisor's staff may arrange for such meeting, or j
the Supervisor shall request the Board to direct appropriate Countyi
staff to arrange for the meeting. County staff shall be made. I
available to present pertinent information at such a meeting.
4. At the time a reconnnendationto construct, purchase or lease a
facility for County use is submitted to the Board, staff shall
advise the Boa.rd of the possibility of significant public interest
in the project. If the Board considers it desirable, the Clerk
of the Board will be instructed to place the item early on its
agenda to permit expression of public interest.
References
B/S Action 10-6-70 (70)
B/S Action 5-4-71 (90)
B/S Action 3-16-76 (63)
B/S Action 8-23-77 (6)
0)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 216 of 383
LAND USES -PALOMAR AIRPORT
The following uses are permitted:
a. Structures and Facilities
Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to the
operation of the airport and to the control of air traffic
in relation thereto, include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:
(1) Runways, taxiways and parking aprons, including lighting.
(2) Aircraft hangars, tie-down areas and maintenance buildings.
(3) Air traffic control towers and facilities.
(4) Navigational aid equipment and structures.
(5) Support buildings to include: airport administration;
conunuter airline terminal; shelters for operations and
equipment necessary to the maintenance, security and
safety of the airport; consumer service establishments
to include restaurants, bars, automobile rentals, vending
machines and retail facilities normally operated for the
convenience of airport users.
(6) Heliports.
(7) Aviation fuel farms.
(8) Automobile parking lots.
b. Connnercial Activities
Connnercial aviation activities include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 217 of 383
(1) Aviation flight and ground schools, including pilot and
student equipment sales.
(2) Aircraft sales, including radio and navigational equipment,
parts, supplies and accessory equipment.
(3) Aircraft hangar and tie-down rentals.
(4) Aircraft leasing, rental and charter.
(5) Airframe, engine, radio, navigational and accessory equip-
ment assembly, repair, maintenance and modification.
(6) Aircraft ground support equipment repair, maintenance and
modification.
(7) Aircraft cleaning services.
(8) Aircraft painting.
(9) Aviation fuel facilities.
(10) Aircraft and engine mechanic schools.
(11) Commuter airlines.
(12) Air taxi and air ambulance services.
(13) Air freight and air courier service.
(14) Aerial crop dusting and spraying enterprises.
(15) Aerial fire fighting.
(16) Aerial photography and surveying.
(17) Parachute rigging sales and· sercice.
c. Other Uses
(1) Office, retail, and service uses related or ancillary to
other uses permitted under sub-paragraphs a and b above;
or which are normally operated for the convenience of the
employees or patrons of such other uses.
(2) Agricultural uses.
(3) County Animal Shelter.
From:Redman Ralph
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Gonzalez Amy; Knack Sjohnna; Abbott, Jamie; Gowens Ed; Noyce Sidney; Hollarn Garret
Subject:RE: ALUC consistency determination application - City of Carlsbad’s proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Date:Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:24:54 PM
Attachments:image002.png image003.png
image004.gif
Carlsbad New and Expanded Airports Amendments - ALUC Consistency Determination Letter.pdf
Please find attached the determination of consistency for the City of Carlsbad’s proposed
amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, submitted for Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review. This determination will be reported to the ALUC at the public
meeting scheduled for July 11, 2024, after which it will become final, barring any objections
at the meeting from the ALUC. Please consult the letter for further details. Should you have any questions regarding the determination, please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or
egowens@san.org.
Ralph Redman
Manager | Development Division/Planning & Env. Affairs Dept.
Office 619.400.2464
rredman@san.org
SAN.ORG
A blue sign with white text
Description automatically generated
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:04 AM
To: ALUCapp <ALUCapp@san.org>
Subject: ALUC consistency determination application
Good morning:
The City of Carlsbad initiated a project to proposes amendments to the city’s General Plan,
Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify code requirements and permit
review procedures for new or expanded airport uses, or where there is an acquisition of
property beyond the current boundaries of the airport.
Oct. 16, 2024Item #2 218 of 383
[ii
[ii
The City of Carlsbad is required by state law to submit the draft code amendments to the ALUC
for the San Diego County for an ALUCP consistency determination prior to final approval.
Attached is the City of Carlsbad consistency determination request for draft code amendments
that the city is sponsoring.
The draft General Plan Amendment is as follows: The proposed amendment would amend the
text and define “airport” and “airport expansion” and allow an airport with approval of a
conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the city. The
draft Zoning Code Amendment is as follows: The proposed amendment would amend Zoning
Ordinance text and define “airport” and “airport expansion” and allow an airport with approval
of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport designated on the city’s Zoning Map and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all
other properties within the city.
Please mail or email a letter to the City (my attention) confirming that you have received the
ALUC consistency determination application and will indicate if the application is complete or
missing required or additional submittal materials. Otherwise, the date of this email will be
construed as the start date for any agency review period.
Mike Strong
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2721 direct | mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 219 of 383
June 18, 2024
Mr. Mike Strong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination – Amendments to General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses Related to
McClellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Strong:
As the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) acknowledges receipt of an application for a
determination of consistency for the project described above. The area covered by this
project lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport -
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined
that it meets our requirements for completeness. In accordance with SDCRAA Policy 8.30
and applicable provisions of the State Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21670-21679.5),
ALUC staff will report to the ALUC that the proposed project is consistent with the
McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP based upon the facts and findings summarized below:
(1) The project involves amendments to the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to specify and clarify policy objectives, code requirements, and permit review
procedures for new and expanded airport land uses on and around the property of
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
a) General plan amendments propose the following:
i. Specify as a policy statement City opposition to any changes to the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan
or approach speed for the airfield or that would accommodate larger
aircraft than are currently in use at the airport such that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design classification would require
revision to anything other than a B-II Enhanced Alternative; and
ii. Specify definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion” congruent
respectively with the State Aeronautics Act definition of “airport” (Cal. Pub.
Util. Code §21013) and the standards of the Aeronautics Act which, if
exceeded, would require an amended Airport Permit from Caltrans Division
of Aeronautics (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21661.6); and
iii. Require new or expanded “airport” uses to obtain a new or amended
conditional use permit; and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 220 of 383
iv. Permit “airport” uses only within the current boundary of McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
b) Zoning ordinance amendments propose the following:
i. Permit “airport” uses only by issuance of a new or amended conditional use
permit; and
ii. Amend the zoning on properties adjacent to McClellan-Palomar Airport to
remove “airport” as permissible uses, such that only the property within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted in the city
zoning map would remain as permissible for “airport” uses.
(2) The ALUC does not exercise jurisdiction over operations of any airport, and its statutory
role and duty is to advise local agencies on the consistency of proposed projects within
the AIA of an adopted ALUCP (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21674).
(3) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP noise contours.
(4) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP airspace protection
surfaces.
(5) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP safety zones.
(6) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within the ALUCP overflight notification
area.
(7) Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP.
(8) A determination of consistency is not a “project” as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21065, and is not a
“development” as defined by the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30106.
The information above will be reported to the ALUC to confirm this letter at its public
meeting on July 11, 2024. The determination of consistency will be final as of that meeting,
unless the ALUC finds cause to delay such action, in which case a determination will be
rendered within 60 days of the date of this letter, to be confirmed by additional
correspondence.
Any determination of consistency rendered by the ALUC is limited to the project plans and
descriptions submitted with the application and is not transferable to any revision of this or
any similar, future project involving a change in land use, in building or crane height, or in
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 221 of 383
building area in excess of 10 percent (provided area increase does exceed ALUCP standards)
of any prior ALUC determination. Any change or exceedance in these characteristics
requires a new consistency determination prior to decision-making consideration by the
local agency.
Please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or egowens@san.org if you have any questions
regarding this letter.
Yours truly,
Ralph Redman
Manager, Airport Planning
cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRAA General Counsel
Sjohnna Knack, SDCRAA Planning, Noise, & Environment
Jamie Abbott, County of San Diego Airports
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 222 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Public Comment - Palomar Airport General Plan Amendments & Zoning Ordinances
Date:Friday, July 5, 2024 11:32:27 AM
Dear Mr. Strong:
Regarding the document presented for public review dated May 24, 2024, it appears
there is a typographical error. The result is a distinct change to the definition of
“expansion” as described in California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21664.5. The
City’s circulated language for its proposed Zoning Ordinance and General Plan
Amendments does not align with its stated goal to “Utilize the State Public Utilities
Commission code Definition of ‘airport expansion,’ ” on 2-P.39 e. of the document.
Citizens for a Friendly Airport requests that the City of Carlsbad use the California Public
Utilities code exactly as it is written by the State in its proposed General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments (Section 1 General Plan Amendments 2-P.39, e.)
The exact text of California PUC § 21664.5 is listed below for clarity. We suggest starting
with Item (b) and include (1), (2), (3), and (4).
“(a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion of an existingairport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with eachrequirement of this article pertaining to permits for new airports. The department mayby regulation provide for exemptions from the operation of this section pursuant toSection 21661, except that no exemption shall be made limiting the applicability ofsubdivision (e) of Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, includingthe requirement for public hearings in connection therewith.
(b) As used in this section, “airport expansion” includes any of the following:
(1) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal AviationAdministration Advisory Circular 150/1500 -13, or of any interest in land forthe purpose of any other expansion as set forth in this section.
(2) The construction of a new runway.
(3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway.
(4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for the purpose ofaccomplishing or which are related to the purpose of paragraph (1), (2), or (3).
(c) This section does not apply to any expansion of an existing airport if the expansioncommenced on or prior to the effective date of this section and the expansion met theapproval, on or prior to that effective date, of each governmental agency that requiredthe approval by law.”
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 223 of 383
On behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA), thank you for your consideration.
Please confirm receipt of these comments.
Respectfully,
Vickey Syage
President, C4FA
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 224 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong
Subject:Re: Public Comment - Palomar Airport General Plan Amendments & Zoning Ordinances
Date:Saturday, July 6, 2024 3:00:10 PM
Dear Mr. Strong,
Please note in my email below sent on behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport, the referencedCity Document is actually dated May 21, 2024, not May 24, 2024 as I cited in my email to
you. Please accept this email as a notice of correction.Please confirm receipt.
Thank you.Vickey Syage
President, C4FA
On Jul 5, 2024, at 11:32 AM, Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Strong:
Regarding the document presented for public review dated May 24, 2024, it
appears there is a typographical error. The result is a distinct change to the
definition of “expansion” as described in California Public Utilities Code
(PUC) Section 21664.5. The City’s circulated language for its proposed
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendments does not align with its
stated goal to “Utilize the State Public Utilities Commission code Definition
of ‘airport expansion,’ ” on 2-P.39 e. of the document.
Citizens for a Friendly Airport requests that the City of Carlsbad use the
California Public Utilities code exactly as it is written by the State in its
proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Section 1
General Plan Amendments 2-P.39, e.)
The exact text of California PUC § 21664.5 is listed below for clarity. We
suggest starting with Item (b) and include (1), (2), (3), and (4).
“(a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion ofan existing airport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shallcomply with each requirement of this article pertaining to permits for newairports. The department may by regulation provide for exemptions fromthe operation of this section pursuant to Section 21661, except that noexemption shall be made limiting the applicability of subdivision (e) ofSection 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including therequirement for public hearings in connection therewith.
(b) As used in this section, “airport expansion” includes any of thefollowing:
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 225 of 383
(1) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined inFederal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/1500 -13,or of any interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion asset forth in this section.
(2) The construction of a new runway.
(3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway.
(4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for thepurpose of accomplishing or which are related to the purpose ofparagraph (1), (2), or (3).
(c) This section does not apply to any expansion of an existing airport ifthe expansion commenced on or prior to the effective date of this sectionand the expansion met the approval, on or prior to that effective date, ofeach governmental agency that required the approval by law.”
On behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA), thank you for your
consideration.
Please confirm receipt of these comments.
Respectfully,
Vickey Syage
President, C4FA
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 226 of 383
From:Abbott, Jamie
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Pasumarthi, Murali; Morgan, William; Bosworth, Thomas L; Boghossian Ambrose, Nicole; Parr, Matthew; JasonHaber; Manager Internet Email
Subject:RE: City of Carlsbad - Public Notice for Code Amendments
Date:Monday, July 8, 2024 2:02:04 PM
Attachments:image004.gifimage003.pngLUEG Letter to Carlsbad re C4FA Requests.pdfCarlsbadCityLetter_1993.pdfCity of Carlsbad_Public Comment Response_Zoning Code_General Plan_Local Coastal Plan_8 July 2024.pdf
Hello Mike,
Attached is the County’s response and associated attachments for the City’s public comment
period regarding proposed changes to Zoning Code, General Plan, and Local Coastal Plan.
Please reach out with any questions, I’m happy to help.
Regards,
Jamie
Jamie
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Abbott, Jamie <Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: [External] City of Carlsbad - Public Notice for Code Amendments
Good morning:
The City of Carlsbad initiated a project that proposes a series of amendments to the city’s
General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify code requirements
and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport uses in the city, or where there is an
acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport. Please see the attached. I
have also included some of the public notices that are being distributed later today.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 227 of 383
Ii]
The draft General Plan Amendment may be generally described as follows: The proposed
amendment would amend the text and define “airport” and “airport expansion” and allow an
airport with approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of
McClellan-Palomar Airport and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties
within the city.
The draft Zoning Code Amendment may be generally described as follows: The proposed
amendment would amend Zoning Ordinance text and define “airport” and “airport expansion”
and allow an airport with approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport designated on the city’s Zoning Map and prohibit an
airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the city.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the code amendments.
Mike Strong
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2721 direct | mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 228 of 383
July 8, 2024 Mike Strong, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 PUBLIC COMMENT TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING
CODE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN RELATING TO PALOMAR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Strong,
The County of San Diego (County) appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter in response
to the City of Carlsbad (City) request for public comment on amending the General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program for new and expanded Airport uses (GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021). As owner and operator of McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport), the County believes the City may inadvertently restrict certain safety improvements
approved by the County Board of Supervisors (Board) when the Master Plan Update (Master
Plan) for the Airport was adopted. These improvements include the extension of the existing runway, the installation of an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), and the acquisition of future Runway Protection Zones (RPZ). These improvements were adopted by the Board to improve safety for existing Airport users. Therefore, the County requests the City reconsider or
modify the current proposal in order to not impede the implementation of the safety
improvements included in the Master Plan. The County looks forward to collaborating with the City to ensure the continued safe use of the Airport is prioritized. Master Plan
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the County of San Diego to have long-range planning documents for the airports it owns and operates. On December 8, 2021, the County Board adopted the Master Plan and associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Airport. The Master Plan update, including the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), was
developed according to FAA guidelines, and identified safety improvements needed to
accommodate the design critical aircraft based on current and forecasted aviation activity over the 20-year planning period. The FAA refers to design critical aircraft as a specific type of airplane that is used as a reference or standard when designing and planning an airport’s facilities and infrastructure. According to the FAA, the design critical aircraft must have over 500
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 229 of 383
annual operations (take-offs and landings) at an airport. At the time the Master Plan was approved, the Gulfstream G650, a D-III aircraft, accounted for over 700 annual operations and was identified as the “design critical aircraft” for the Airport. To safely accommodate this aircraft, the Board approved an ultimate D-III modified design standard as part of the Master Plan, which
includes changes to RPZ and a possible runway shift and extension, all within the current footprint of airport property. No legal challenges were brought to the December 2021 Master Plan and PEIR approval. The Master Plan prioritizes the safety of existing users over all other planning criteria. The focus
of the Master Plan on the safety of existing users was largely motivated by a desire to address an accident that occurred at the Airport on January 25, 2006, in which four people were killed. The desire to help provide an extra margin of safety for existing airport users motivated the proposals in the Master Plan to add the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), runway length, and a runway shift as part of a D-III modified standard. Again, the County’s primary
planning criteria for the Master Plan was to improve safety for existing users. County Concerns with City’s Proposed Actions The City’s proposed actions attempt to implement land use restrictions that could block actions
needed for the County to achieve safety standards at the Airport. The proposed restrictions have two parts: 1. Define airport expansion broadly to include any relocation or extension of the existing runway.
2. Prohibit acquiring RPZ, which is a federal safety zone meant to protect people and property on the ground, without a use permit amendment or City-approved plan. The restrictions also attempt to limit Airport uses to the existing Airport footprint as shown on the current City zoning maps, which do not include any RPZ areas. These restrictions, if fully
implemented, could prohibit, or delay the County from implementing safety improvements for aircraft currently using the Airport. The County acknowledges that some community members in Carlsbad have been concerned about the implementation of the safety improvements identified in the Master Plan and perceive
that implementing the approved D-III design standard will encourage a change in Airport use. FAA grant assurances make clear that the County cannot restrict the type, kind, or class of aircraft that use the Airport. More operators of D-III aircraft may decide to use the Airport if it is improved to accommodate them more safely. However, it is also true that the County limited the scope of the Master Plan to restrict this from happening. No property acquisition was included
in the Master Plan. No significant increase in airplane support facilities for storage, repair, or fueling was included in the Master Plan. Implementing a D-III design standard includes a runway shift that will significantly reduce aircraft parking by eliminating the entire north side ramp. Again, the Master Plan prioritizes the safety of existing users over all other planning criteria.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 230 of 383
Response to C4FA Comments The County is aware that Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA) sent an email on January 3, 2024, requesting that the City amend its general plan, zoning ordinance, and local coastal plan
to prevent the implementation of the D-III safety improvements. On February 27, 2024 (10), the
City Council directed City staff to take concurrent action based on C4FA’s proposal. The County responded to the City Council’s February direction to City staff in a letter dated and sent April 23, 2024, explaining some of the practical and legal problems with the position advocated for by C4FA (Attachment A). Without waiving or limiting the County’s right to object to the City’s
proposal on other grounds not specifically identified in this or the April 23rd comment letter, the County wishes to highlight a few instances where reliance on C4FA’s proposal will likely hinder the safety objectives of the Master Plan by relying on unsubstantiated legal arguments and expanding the City’s jurisdiction in a manner that conflicts with the County’s vested rights under Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-172. This would ultimately be preempted by FAA safety
requirements and federal law. 1. City Efforts to Condition Runway Relocation, Runway Extension and RPZ Acquisition on City Approval Is Preempted by Federal Law:
The County approval of the D-III modified standard improved the safety and efficiency of
the Airport for existing users. The Master Plan identified shifting the runway to the north to meet FAA safety standards for wingtip separation for the design critical aircraft between Taxiway A and the runway, and the installation of EMAS to meet FAA design requirements for runway safety. The acquisition of RPZ is necessary to implement federal
safety standards to protect people and property on the ground. The City’s general plan,
zoning, and local coastal plan amendment seeks to restrict RPZ acquisition and condition any runway extension or relocation on obtaining prior approval of the City. The City’s proposed amendments to control County efforts to meet airfield safety improvements is preempted by federal law.
Discussion
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 The City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that required the Burbank Airport to submit every proposed runway and taxiway project to the City Planning Commission for
prior approval. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and then ruled in favor of Burbank Airport on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals upholding the summary judgment in favor of the Burbank Airport addressed the scope of federal preemption under 49 USC § 1301 et seq. as follows:
“The problem with this Ordinance is that it conditions the construction and
reconstruction of taxiways and runways on the prior approval of the City. This
the City may not do. The proper placement of taxiways and runways is critical
to the safety of takeoffs and landings and essential to the efficient management of the surrounding airspace. The regulation of runways and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 231 of 383
taxiways is thus a direct interference with the movements and operations of
aircraft and is therefore preempted by federal law.
Stated simply, a non-proprietor municipality may not exercise its police power
to prohibit, delay, or otherwise condition the construction of runways and
taxiways at a non-city-owned airport.” (p. 1341.) The City proposed to amend its zoning ordinance to apply its definition of airport which includes any safety zones to the interpretation of Public Utilities Code section 21661.6.
This Section provides that prior to the acquisition of any land by a political subdivision for the purpose of expanding or enlarging an airport in a city that the airport proprietor must submit an acquisition plan to the City. Upon approval of the plan, the statute provides that acquisition may begin. The County does not agree that Section 21661.6 applies to the purchase of safety zones for runway relocations or extension completed entirely on
Airport property. Interpreting the statute in the manner proposed by the City would trigger federal preemption.
Twp. of Tinicum v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. Phil., 2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 Plaintiffs a township and county asserted that a Pennsylvania statute, 53 PA Stat. Ann.
Section 14161, required their consent for the purchase of property in their jurisdictions needed to extend a runway to improve the safe and efficient operation of the airport. Granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the airport operator, the district court found that the State statute was preempted by federal law. Relying on the opinion in Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, supra, the district court held that,
“Section 14161 is preempted for the same reason the ordinance of the Los Angeles City
Council was preempted.” Similarly, in United States v. New Haven (2nd Cir., 1971) 447 F.2d 972, the federal court of appeals found that a district court had properly granted a preliminary injunction finding a State statute that required the consent of a non-proprietor municipality for the acquisition of clear zone in its jurisdiction pre-empted by federal law.
Summary Federal law preempts the City’s efforts to amend its General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and Local Coastal Plan with the intension to prohibit or require the County to seek approval for the relocation or extension of the runway, the installation of EMAS, and the
acquisition of RPZ in support of the implementation of the D-III safety improvements approved by the Board. 2. Airport Expansion Should Not Include RPZ Acquisition:
RPZ are trapezoidal safety zones at both ends of a runway to protect people and property
on the ground from the risk of an aircraft accident. The FAA encourages airport operators to acquire RPZ to avoid incompatible land uses. The scope of required RPZ is defined by the FAA and can change even if there is no change in the facilities or users of an airport as standards are revised by the FAA over time.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 232 of 383
The City is proposing to amend its zoning ordinance to prohibit the acquisition of any RPZ outside the existing zoning map boundary of the Airport. The proposal does this by confining allowed Airport uses to the existing zoning map boundary of the Airport and defining the terms airport and expansion as including safety zones. Under the City’s
current proposal, a zoning amendment would be required to allow for RPZ acquisition. These same definitions are included in the proposed changes to the City’s general plan. City Ordinance section 21.53.015(a) provides that, “The city council shall not approve any
zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative enactment necessary to authorize an expansion of the airport without having first been authorized to do so by a
majority vote of the qualified electors of the city.” The County does not agree that the proposed changes would trigger Section 21.53.015(a), or that action to allow the City to prohibit the acquisition of RPZ can be implemented by the City. The City Attorney concluded in a May 3, 1993, letter to the County that acquisition of
property for “clear zone” (the predecessor zone to RPZ) was not an expansion where it could be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the redesignation or rezoning of land (Attachment B) Based on this interpretation, the County was historically free to acquire Clear Zone or RPZ without a zone change or vote under City Ordinance 21.53.015.
Discussion The scope of the term “expansion” proposed by C4FA and used by the City was reviewed and rejected in the January 26, 2021, ruling of the San Diego Superior Court (Court) in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2018-00057624-CU-
TT-CTL (hereinafter Ruling). In the Ruling, the Court upheld the County’s interpretation of “expansion” when it held that, “the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of
the term "expansion" and that no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of
the proposed changes set forth in the Project [i.e., Master Plan approval].”
Summary
The City’s proposed actions to redefine the term “expansion” to include acquiring RPZ without any change in the use of the land acquired is contrary to Section 21.53.015 and the Ruling. Moreover, acquiring property for RPZ is within the scope of cases that have found State and local regulations of Airports to be preempted by federal law. (See, for
example, United States v. New Haven (2nd Cir., 1971) 447 F.2d 972).) The proposal to amend the City’s General Plan and zoning to effectively prohibit acquisition of RPZ unnecessarily risks public safety by encouraging incompatible land uses and restricting actions the County can reasonably take to eliminate the risk. The County notes that the restriction applies even if there is no change in the current B-II design status of the Airport.
3. Amendment to CUP-172 Not Required for Runway Relocation or Extension: The City adopted C4FA’s proposal based on the premise that an amendment of CUP-172 is required for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway extension was
“specifically omitted” from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172. C4FA’s
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 233 of 383
legal counsel states that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of “airport expansion” in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 which is only applicable to State-issued airport operating permits.
Discussion This argument was reviewed and rejected in the Ruling. The Ruling addressed a challenge brought to the County’s initial approval of the Master Plan on October 10, 2018 (hereinafter Project). The Project included approval of facilities changes such as the relocation of existing taxiways, installation of EMAS, and a runway extension located
entirely within existing Airport property. The Court rejected the assertion that an amendment to CUP-172 is required for the proposed runway extension when it found, “the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion" and that
no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth in the Project.”
This decision is consistent with the long-standing approach between the City and County through regular coordination stretching back decades. In February 1993, the County coordinated with City staff about proposed facilities changes regarding commercial aviation service. In response, by letter dated May 3, 1993, then City Attorney, Ron Ball,
explained that improvement of facilities per Table I of CUP-172 entirely on Airport property would not require a use permit amendment. Table I of CUP-172 does not “specifically omit” runway extensions as claimed by C4FA’s legal counsel. Instead, Table 1 provides that, “Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to the operation of the airport and to the control of air traffic in relation thereto, include, but [are] not necessarily limited to,
the following:...[sic]”. The list in Table I of CUP-172 is not exclusive and is neither specific nor limits runway extensions. Moreover, a determination that the Project runway extension is included within Table 1 of CUP-172 is reasonable as it avoids federal preemption issues that would
otherwise arise. (See, for example, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los
Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 (City ordinance regulating taxiway and runway relocations preempted by federal law); Twp of Tinicium v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. PA, 2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 (City ordinance limiting runway extension preempted by federal law).) It is clear that amending the City’s zoning ordinance and general plan to
include the definition of “airport expansion” set forth in Public Utilities Code section
21664.5 is not, as C4FA asserts, necessary to effectuate the “intent and meaning of CUP-172.” It is in fact contrary to the meaning of that term as used in CUP-172. If the City were to nevertheless decide to amend its zoning ordinances and general plan
to include the definition of “airport expansion” contained in Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5, these changes cannot properly be applied to the County. While the County was found in the Ruling to have waived its immunities under Government Code section 53090 when it obtained CUP-172, the Ruling did not find that the waiver extends to subsequently enacted City ordinances. Moreover, the Ruling does not address the County’s vested
rights under CUP-172 or the scope of federal pre-emption.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 234 of 383
Amending the City zoning ordinance and the general plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” as outlined in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts, to bring City requirements into compliance with State law. The term “airport expansion” used in Section 21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained. It does not
establish a generally applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states that, “As used in this
section, “airport expansion” includes...acquisition of runway protection
zones...construction of a new runway...[and] extension or realignment of an existing
runway….” (emphasis added.) Since the definition of airport expansion as used in Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport permits, there is no basis to apply it
broadly to City Ordinance section 21.53.015 and CUP-172. As noted above, this reading is inconsistent with the definition of the term expansion used in Section 21.53.015 and CUP-172. FAA Grant Assurances
FAA Grant Assurance 5 compels the County to “not take or permit any action which would
operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers [necessary to comply with its obligations as
an airport sponsor] ... and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance....” Federal grant
assurances may force the County to challenge the City’s proposals. C4FA’s position as adopted by the City has its origin in a misunderstanding of the scope of the action taken by the Board when it approved the D-III modified standards option for the Master Plan. The Board’s Master Plan approval was made to improve the safety of the Airport for existing users.
Closing The County Masterplan has identified the need to shift the existing runway to meet federal safety standards for taxiway and runway separation. The FAA has identified EMAS and acquisition of RPZ as required safety improvements.
Federal preemption of local land use ordinances is extended when the ordinances impair the federal interest in air safety or conflict with an airport sponsor’s obligations under federal law. The City’s efforts to amend its General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and Local Coastal Program, with the intention to prohibit or require the County to seek approval for support of the
implementation of the D-III safety improvements approved by the Board, conflict with federal
interests. These actions also conflict with the County’s vested rights under CUP-172. The County requests the City reconsider or modify the current proposal in order to not impede the implementation of the safety improvements included in the Master Plan.
The County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed code amendments for new
and expanded airport uses and we look forward to future discussions regarding these comments. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov or Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 235 of 383
Sincerely,
WILLIAM P. MORGAN, P.E., Interim Director Department of Public Works cc: Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports
Matthew Parr, Interim Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs
Tom Bosworth, County Counsel Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 23, 2024, County of San Diego Letter to City of Carlsbad in Response to the City’s Proposed Actions
Attachment B: May 3, 1993, City Attorney Letter to the County
Oct. 16, 2024Item #2 236 of 383
Ji}Vv\J J M
April 23, 2024
The Honorable Keith Blackburn, Mayor, City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT OPERATIONS Dear Honorable Mayor Blackburn,
On February 27, 2024 (10), the Carlsbad City Council directed City of Carlsbad (City) staff to
propose amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport). The action was taken in response to a request from Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA) by email dated January 3, 2024. As the owner and operator of the Airport, the County of San Diego (County) is providing this letter to address some of the
statements made by C4FA and its legal counsel and to highlight that the County’s limited
authority was previously determined through litigation. It also responds to the City’s request to initiate a meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) dated March 27, 2024. The County is committed to maintaining a strong working relationship with the City and continues
to take steps to ensure the City and its residents have a voice regarding Airport matters. As
C4FA notes, the County obtained CUP-172 from the City as a condition of the annexation of the Airport into the City. After the FAA rejected the County’s application to establish noise restrictions at the Airport, the County implemented a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP) for the Airport. The County Board of Supervisors has twice amended the Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee (PAAC) Ordinance to increase City representation on the PAAC. County and City
staff established a regular meeting schedule to ensure the City has a chance to provide early input on County Airport projects. Through these and other actions, the County has demonstrated its commitment to including the City and its residents in Airport matters.
Response to C4FA Comments
While we look forward to continuing to develop a positive relationship with the City and its residents, the County would like to address statements in C4FA’s email and attached January 2, 2024 letter from C4FA’s legal counsel. Specifically, C4FA’s legal counsel argues that an
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 237 of 383
amendment of CUP-172 is required for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway extension was “specifically omitted” from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172. C4FA’s legal counsel further argues that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of
“airport expansion” in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 which is applicable only to State-
issued airport operating permits. This argument was reviewed and rejected in the January 26, 2021 ruling of the San Diego Superior Court (Court) in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-
2018-00057624-CU-TT-CTL (hereinafter “Ruling”). The Ruling addressed a challenge brought
to the County’s approval on October 10, 2018 of the McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (“Project”). The Project included approval of facilities changes such as the relocation of existing taxiways, installation of an Emergency Materials Arresting System (EMAS), and a runway extension located entirely within existing Airport property. The Court rejected the
assertion that an amendment to CUP-172 is required for the proposed runway extension when
it found, “the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion" and that no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth in the Project.”
This decision is consistent with long-standing understandings reached between the City and
County through regular coordination stretching back decades. In February 1993, the County coordinated with City staff about proposed facilities changes regarding commercial aviation service. In response, by letter dated May 3, 1993, then City Attorney, Ron Ball, explained that improvement of facilities in accordance with Table I of CUP-172 entirely on Airport property
would not require a use permit amendment. Table I of CUP-172 does not “specifically omit”
runway extensions as claimed by C4FA’s legal counsel. Instead, Table 1 provides that, “Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to the operation of the airport and to the control of air traffic in relation thereto, include, but [are] not necessarily limited to, the following:...”
The omission of runways from the subsequent list in Table I of CUP-172 is neither specific nor
limiting because the list is not exclusive. Moreover, the determination of the Court that the Project runway extension is included within Table 1 of CUP-172 is inherently reasonable as it avoids federal preemption issues that would otherwise arise. (See, for example, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 (City ordinance
regulating taxiway and runway relocations preempted by federal law); Twp of Tinicium v. City of
Philadelphia (E.D. PA, 2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 (City ordinance limiting runway extension preempted by federal law).) It is, accordingly, clear that amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” set forth in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 is not, as C4FA asserts, necessary to effectuate the “intent and meaning of
CUP-172.” It is in fact contrary to the meaning of that term as used in CUP-172.
If the City were to nevertheless decide to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinances and General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” contained in Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5, these changes cannot properly be applied to the County. While the County was found in the
Ruling to have waived its immunities under Government Code section 53090 when it obtained
CUP-172, the Ruling did not find that the waiver extends to subsequently enacted City ordinances. Moreover, the Ruling does not address the County’s vested rights under CUP-172.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 238 of 383
Amending the City Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan to include the definition of “airport expansion” set forth in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts, to bring City
requirements into compliance with State law. The term “airport expansion” used in Section
21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained, it does not establish a generally applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states in pertinent part that, “As used in this section, “airport expansion” includes...acquisition of runway protection zones...construction of a new runway...[and] extension or realignment of an existing runway….” (Emphasis added.) Since the
definition of airport expansion as used in Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport
permits, the City is free to and has applied its own definition of the term as used in City Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP-172. Condition 8 of CUP-172 states that, “Approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or
expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.” City
Ordinance 21.53.015 enacted by the City Council on August 12, 1980 in response to a voter initiative states in pertinent part that, “The city council shall not approve any zone change, general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the city nor shall the city commence any action or spend any funds preparatory
to or in anticipation of such approvals without having been first authorized to do so by a majority
vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such proposes.” Interpreting the term expansion used in both CUP-172 and Ordinance 21.53.015, the City Attorney concluded in a May 3, 1993 letter that acquisition of property for “clear zone” was not an expansion where it could be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the redesignation or
rezoning of land.
The May 3, 1993 letter was presented to the Court and was a basis for the Ruling agreeing with the County’s interpretation of the term expansion. The County appreciates that C4FA may be dissatisfied with this part of the Ruling, but no appeal was taken, and the decision is final. The
County notes that under FAA Grant Assurance 5 it may “not take or permit any action which
would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers [necessary to comply with its obligations as an airport sponsor] ... and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance....”
City Request for Meeting with FAA
Separately, the County is also acknowledging receipt of a letter from Mr. Chadwick and the City
dated March 27, 2024 requesting that County Airports ask the FAA to convene a community
roundtable “addressing the growing community concerns surrounding aircraft operations at
McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad” and “a perceived increase in aircraft noise and
deviations from the County’s recommended flight procedures.” To facilitate this request, the
County will reach out to Senators Butler and Padilla and Representative Levin to address the
request for a community roundtable with the FAA. The FAA maintains sole authority over flight
safety, patterns, and air traffic control at the Airport. While the County is limited in its ability to
enforce measures beyond the VNAP that are outlined for aircraft operations at the Airport,
County staff would be happy to attend to speak to current airport operations within the County’s
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 239 of 383
jurisdiction. The County accepts federal grant funding from the FAA and is obligated to maintain
the facility as a “public use airport.” The County has no authority over the quantity, type, or flight
track of any aircraft arriving or departing from the Airport, which are under FAA jurisdiction.
However, the County recognizes the concerns of the Airport’s surrounding residents and
communities from a practical standpoint. On December 29, 2021, the County sent a letter to the FAA outlining the Airport’s crucial contribution to the community and region as a transportation hub, an emergency services facility, and an economic driver that supports local jobs and generates millions of dollars in tax revenues and economic activity annually. While recognizing
the contributions of the Airport, the County requested that the FAA respond to the County’s
Board of Supervisors inquiry as to whether mandatory quiet hours could be established at the Airport or if additional fees could be imposed on aircraft operating during the voluntary quiet hours. In a letter dated February 4, 2022, the FAA responded that “imposition of a mandatory quiet hours restriction or additional fees on aircraft operations in an effort to discourage aircraft
operations during a time of day would be inconsistent with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act
(ANCA) of 1990, as amended, and its implementing regulations under 14 CR Part 161, Notice
and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions and is therefore not allowable.” The County thanks the City for its continued commitment to working together to maintain
McClellan-Palomar Airport’s operations as a critical transportation and community hub, while
being good neighbors to the community. Our staff are available to connect on any needed discussions or further inquiries. Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel can be reached at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov and Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports, can be reached at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
DAHVIA LYNCH
Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chairwoman Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe Supervisor Jim Desmond Bill Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports Sarah Aghassi, Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Caroline Smith, Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs The Honorable Priya Bhat-Patel, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Carlsbad District, 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 240 of 383
~~-___,
The Honorable Melanie Burkholder, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 1 The Honorable Carolyn Luna, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 2 The Honorable Teresa Acosta, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 4
Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: February 27, 2024 Carlsbad City Council Agenda Item 10 Staff Report and C4FA Letter Attachment B: March 27, 2024 City of Carlsbad Letter to County of San Diego Request for
Community Roundtable Regarding Aircraft Operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport with
FAA Attachment C: December 29, 2021 County of San Diego Letter to FAA Regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 241 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 242 of 383
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
(619) 434-2891
RONALD A. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
KAREN J. HIRATA
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Robert P. Olislagers, CAE
Airport Manager
Department of Public Works
McClellan-Palomar Airport
2198 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, California 92008
FAX: (619) 434-8367
May 3, 1993
RE: OPERATION OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.53.015
REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS TO CITY VOTERS PRIOR
TO CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE ACTION FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION
Dear Mr. Olislagers:
Based on our discussions over the last several months and your
report entitled, "McClellan-Palomar Airport" Terminal Development
and Space Needs Analysis dated February 15, 1993, I understand the
county is contemplating accommodating those needs in a number of
ways including the following options:
1. "Construct facilities at the present Palomar Airport site
which calls for demolition of current facilities on the
site and construction of new facilities in their place.
Due to the relative small size, consideration will be
given to the cost of a multi-story facility to
accommodate the terminal and parking."
2. Acquisition of a new site contiguous to the airport boundaries
for construction. This alternative calls for the acquisition
o·f airport adjacent property and the location of a new
terminal and parking facilities on it. This alternative will
allow-phasing of air carrier operations separate from general
aviation operations.
3. It is my further understanding that the county is considering
acquiring two lots (lots 42 and 50 shown on the attached site
plan for the Carlsbad Airport Center) at the westerly end of
the runway for clear zone pu~poses.
The question presented is whether or not any or all of these
alternatives will require submittal to City voters.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 243 of 383
.. •
/ I
The site plan, land uses and conditions of approval for the Palomar
Airport are set forth in the conditional use permit (CUP 172)
approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on September 24, 1980.
I have enclosed a copy of that use permit for your files.
According to Table 1 of the CUP, certain structures and facilities
are permitted without the need for additional discretionary review.
For example, such structures and facilities include airport
administration buildings and airport passenger terminal facilities.
Other uses, such as incidental eating and drinking establishments,
require approval by the Carlsbad Planning Commission.
In addition, a petition was circulated among Carlsbad voters in
1980 and presented to the Council on August 5, 1980. At that time,
our office indicated that the county would need City Council
approval of expansion if it involved the acquisition of additional
property in which case the petition ordinance would require prior
voter approval. An expansion of existing property would not be
affected by the ordinance. On August 12, 1980, this ordinance was
adopted which is set forth in full:
"21.53.015 .Voter authorization required for airport
expansion.
(a) The city council shall not approve any zone change,
general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment
necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the city
nor shall the city commence any action or spend any funds
preparatory to or in anticipation of such approvals without
having been first authorized to do so by a majority vote of
the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for
such proposes.
(b) This section was proposed by initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the city council without submission to
the voters and it shall not be repealed or amended except by
a vote of the people."
Therefore, construction at the present site would not require
legislative action by the City Council and would not require a vote
of the people. Amendment of CUP 172 would be required if any of
the structures or facilities are not those listed in Section I(a)
of Table 1 of the CUP dated September 24, 1980.
Acquisltion of real property outside the boundaries of the plot
plan approved as Exhibit A to CUP 172 would require redesignation
in Carlsbad's General Plan and rezoning in its zoning ordinance
both of which are legislative actions. Therefore, the property
acquisiticfo for structures and facilities related to the airport
would require a vote of the people.
It is my further understanding that the proposed acquisition of
property for a "clear zone" would not require facilities or
structures and would not necessitate redesignation or rezoning of
Carlsbad's existing planning documents. As such, no legislative
action of the City Council is required and no vote of the people
would be required for these acquisitions.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 244 of 383
II
/ /.
,,. Should you have any
// regarding this matter,
questions or need additional information
ple~se do not hesitate to contact me.
rmh
enclosure
c: Mayor and City Council
City Manager
nruly yours,
(~, ,,&;)_ Q.
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 245 of 383
~'( of S-44-
;,~ . ' <>~ e !Ill at ---------------~ ----------------
• -
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP
mYHARBERT
INTERIM DEPUTY CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
July 8, 2024
16(10 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, R00M212, SANOIEGO. CAI.IFORNIA 92101,2422
(6H)) 531-6256
The Honorable Keith Blackbum, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO ITS
GENERAL PLAN, ZONING CODE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM RELATED TO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
Dear Honorable Mayor Blackbum,
On April 23, 2024 (5), the Carlsbad City Council directed City of Carlsbad (City) staff to begin
working on an ordinance or policy document to address new or expanded airport uses at
McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport) and return to the City Council to review and consider the
amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program. The action was
taken in response to a request from Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA) by email dated January
3, 2024 (Attachment A}. The County of San Diego (County) previously sent a letter dated April
23, 2024, explaining some of the practical and legal problems with the position advocated for by
C4FA in their January 23, 2024, email.
On May 2, 2024, the City posted a public notice for comment for the proposed amendments.
The County, as the owner and operator of the Airport, provided public comments to the proposed
amendments to the Community Development Department via a letter dated July 8, 2024
(Attachment B).
The County is committed to maintaining a strong worl<.ing relationship with the City and continues
to take steps to ensure the City and its residents have a voice regarding Airport matters including,
most recently, supporting the City of Carlsbad request to meet with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). While we look forward to continuing to foster our positive relationship with
the City and its residents, the County remains concerned that the actions being taken at this time
could impede efforts to improve safety at the airport, placing aircraft operations, people, and
property at risk.
II is important to note that federal preemption of local land use ordinances is applicable when
the ordinances impair the federal interest in air safety or conflict with the airport sponsor's
obligations under federal law. The County requests, as fully detailed in Attachment B, the City
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 246 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page2
reconsider or modify the current proposal to not impede the implementation of the safe1y
improvements included in the Master Plan.
The County thanks the City for its continued commitment to working together to maintain
McClellan-P~lomar Airport's operations as a critical transportation and community hub, while
being good neighbors to the community. Our staff are available to connect on any needed
discussions or further inquiries. Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel can be reached
at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov, and Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports, can be reached
at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Sincerely, ~~
AMY HARBERT
Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chahwoman
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair
Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe
Supervisor Jim Desmond
William P. Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works
Thomas Bosworth, County Counsel
Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports
Ebony Shelton, Chief Administrative Officer
Matthew Parr, Interim Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs
The Honorable Priya Bhat-Patel, Mayor Pro Tern, City of Carlsbad, District 3
The Honorable Melanie Burkholder, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 1
The Honorable Carolyn Luna, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 2
The Honorable Teresa Acosta, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 4
Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Jeff Murphy, Director, Community Development Department, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 23, 2024, County of San Diego Airport Operations Letter
Attachment B: July 8, 2024, County of San Diego Public Comment Letter
SAND!EGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 247 of 383
ATTACHMENT A
April 23, 2024, County of San Diego Airport Operations Letter
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 248 of 383
DAHVIA LYNCH
INTERIM DEPUTY CHIEF AOMl!a:5TRAl'l\'EOfFICER
April 23, 2024
-d!uunt~ nf jan ~iegn
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP
1800 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ~OOM 212. $AN OIEGO, CA 92101
(819)S3t~2S8
www.wccountv.~t.9ov11u~9
The Honorable Keith Blackbum. Mayor, City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR
AIRPORT OPERATIONS
Dear Honorable Mayor Blackburn,
On February 27, 2024 (10}, the Cartsbad City Council directed City of Carlsbad (City} staff to
propose amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan regarding McClellan-
Palomar Airport (Airport). The action was taken in response to a request from Citizens for a
Friendly Airport (C4FA) by email dated January 3, 2024. As the owner and operator of the
Airport, the County of San Diego (County) is providing this letter to address some of the
statements made by C4FA and its legal counsel and to highlight that the County's limited
authority was previously determined through litigation. lt also responds to the City's request to
initiate a meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA} dated March 27, 2024.
The County is committed to maintaining a strong working relationship with the City and continues
to take steps to ensure the City and its residents have a voice regarding Airport matters. As
C4FA notes, the County obtained CUP-172 from the City as a condition of the annexation of the
Airport into the City. After the FAA rejected the County's application to establish noise restrictions
at the Airport, the County implemented a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP) for the
Airport. The County Board of Supervisors has twice amended the Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee (PAAC) Ordinance to increase City representation on the PAAC. County and City
staff established a regular meeting schedule to ensure the City has a chance to provide early
input on County Airport projects. Through these and other actions, the County has demonstrated
its commitment to including the City and its residents in Airport matters.
Response to C4FA Comment!!;
While we look forward to continuing to develop a positive relationship with the City and its
residents, the County would like to address statements in C4FA's email and attached January
2, 2024 letter from C4FA's legal counsel. Specifically, C4FA's legal counsel argues that an
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 249 of 383
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
April 23, 2024
Page2
amendment of CUP-172 is required for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway
extension was "specifically omitted" from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172.
C4FA's legal counsel further argues that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of
"airport expansion" in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 which is applicable only to State-
issued airport operating permits.
This argument was reviewed and rejected in the January 26, 2021 ruling of the San Diego
Superior Court (Court) in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-
2018-00057624-CU-TT-CTL (hereinafter "Ruling"). The Ruling addressed a challenge brought
to the County's approval on October 10, 2018 of the McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan
Update ("Project"). The Project included approval of facilities changes such as the relocation of
existing taxiways. installation of an Emergency Materials Arresting System (EMAS), and a
runway extension located entirely within existing Airport property. The Court rejected the
assertion that an amendment to CUP-172 is required for the proposed runway extension when
it found. "the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion" and that
no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth in the
Project."
This decision is consistent with long-standing understandings reached between the City and
County through regular coordination stretching back decades. In February 1993, the County
coordinated with City staff about proposed facilities changes regarding commercial aviation
service. In response, by letter dated May 3, 1993, then City Attorney, Ron Ball, explained that
improvement of facilities in accordance with Table I of CUP-172 entirely on Airport property
would not require a use permit amendment. Table I of CUP-172 does not ·specifically omit"
runway extensions as claimed by C4FA's legal counsel. Instead, Table 1 provides that. ''Airport
structures and facilities that are necessary to the operation of the airport and to the control of air
traffic in relation thereto, include, but [are] not necessarily limited to. the following: ... "
The omission of runways from the subsequent list in Table I of CUP-172 is neither specific nor
limiting because the list is not exclusive. Moreover. the determination of the Court that the Project
runway extension is included within Table 1 of CUP-172 is inherently reasonable as it avoids
federal preemption issues that would otherwise arise. (See. for example, Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los Angeles (9111 Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 (City ordinance
regulating taxiway and runway relocations preempted by federal law); Twp of Tinicium v. City of
Philadelphia (E.D. PA, 2010} 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 (City ordinance limiting runway extension
preempted by federal law).) It is, accordingly, clear that amending the City's Zoning Ordinance
and General Plan to include the definition of "airport expansion• set forth in Public Utilities Code
section 21664.5 is not, as C4FA asserts, necessary to effectuate the "intent and maaning of
CUP-172." It is in fact contrary to the meaning of that term as used in CUP-172.
If the City were to nevertheless decide to amend the City's Zoning Ordinances and General Plan
to include the definition of "airport expansion• contained in Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5,
these changes cannot properly be applied to the County. While the County was found in the
Ruling to have waived its immunities under Government Code section 53090 when it obtained
CUP-172. the Ruling did not find that the waiver extends to subsequently enacted City
ordinances. Moreover, the Ruling does not address the County's vested rights under CUP-172.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 250 of 383
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
April 23, 2024
Page 3
Amending the City Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan to include the definition of "airport
expansion" set forth in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts. to bring City
requirements into compliance with State law. The term "airport expansion" used in Section
21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained. it does not establish a generally
applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states in pertinent part that. "As used in this section,
"airport expansion• includes ... acquisition of runway protection zones ... construction of a new
runway ... (and) extension or realignment of an existing runway ... : (Emphasis added.) Since the
definition of airport expansion as used in Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport
permits, the City is free to and has applied its own definition of the term as used in City Ordinance
21.53.015 and CUP-172.
Condition 8 ofCUP-172 states that, "Approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or
expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit." City
Ordinance 21.53.015 enacted by the City Council on August 12, 1980 in response to a voter
initiative states in pertinent part that, "The city council shall not approve any zone change,
general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary lo authorize expansion
of any airport in the city nor shall the city commence any action or spend any funds preparatory
to or in anticipation of such approvals without having been first authorized to do so by a majority
vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such proposes." Interpreting the
term expansion used in both CUP-172 and Ordinance 21.53.015, the City Attorney concluded in
a May 3, 1993 letter that acquisition of property for "clear zone• was not an expansion where it
cou kl be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the redesignation or
rezoning of land.
The May 3, 1993 letter was presented to the Court and was a basis for the Ruling agreeing with
the County's interpretation of the tenm expansion. The County appreciates that C4FA may be
dissatisfied with this part of the Ruling, but no appeal was taken, and the decision is final. The
County notes that under FAA Grant Assurance 5 it may "not take or permit any action which
would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers {necessary to comply with its
obligations as an airport sponsor] ... and will act promptly to acquire. exlinguish or modify any
outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance .... "
City Request for Meeting with FAA
Separately, the County is also acknowledging receipt of a letter from Mr. Chadwick and the City
dated March 27, 2024 requesting that County Airports ask the FAA to convene a community
roundtable "addressing the growing community concerns surrounding aircraft operations at
McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad" and "a perceived increase in aircraft noise and
deviations from the County's recommended flight procedures." To facilitate this request, the
County will reach out to Senators Butler and Padilla and Representative Levin to address the
request for a community roundlable with the FAA. The FAA maintains sole authority over flight
safety, patterns, and air traffic control at the Airport. While the County is limited in its ability to
enforce measures beyond the VNAP that are outlined for aircraft operations at the Airport,
County staff would be happy lo attend to speak lo current airport operations within the County's
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 251 of 383
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
April23,2024
Page4
jurisdiction. The County accepts federal grant funding from the FAA and is obligated to maintain
the facility as a "public use airport." The County has no authority over the quantity, type. or flight
track of any aircraft arriving or departing from the Airport. which are under FAA jurisdiction.
However, the County recognizes the concerns of the Airport's surrounding residents and
communities from a practical standpoint. On December 29, 2021. the County sent a letter to the
FAA outlining the Airport's crucial contribution to the community and region as a transportation
hub. an emergency services facility. and an economic driver that supports local jobs and
generates millions of dollars in tax revenues and economic activity annually. While recognizing
the contributions of the Airport, the County requested that the FAA respond to the County's
Board of Supervisors inquiry as to whether mandatory quiet hours could be established at the
Airport or if additional fees could be imposed on aircraft operating during the voluntary quiet
hours. In a letter dated February 4. 2022. the FAA responded that "imposition of a mandatory
quiet hours restriction or additional fees on aircraft operations in an effort to discourage aircraft
operations during a time of day would be inconsistent with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act
(ANCA) of 1990, as amended, and its implementing regulations under 14 CR Part 161, Notice
and Approval of Airport NoiS$ and Access Restrictions and is therefore not allowable."
The County thanks the City for its continued commitment to working together to maintain
McClellan-Palomar Airport's operations as a critical transportation and community hub, while
being good neighbors to the community. Our staff are available to connect on any needed
discussions or further inquiries. Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel can be reached
at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov and Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports. can be reached
at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
0 __./ ~
OAHVIA LYNCH
Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chairwoman
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer. Vice Chair
Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe
Supervisor Jim Desmond
Bill Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works
Jami& Abbott. Director of County Airports
Sarah Aghassi, Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Caroline Smith, Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs
The Honorable Priya Bhat-Patel, Mayor Pro Tern. City of Carlsbad District, 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 252 of 383
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
April 23, 2024
Page5
The Honorable Melanie Burkholder. Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 1
The Honorable Carolyn Luna, Councilmember. City of Carlsbad. District 2
The Honorable Teresa Acosta, Councilmember, City of Carlsbad, District 4
Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: February 27, 2024 Carlsbad City Council Agenda Item 10 Staff Report and
C4FALetter
Attachment B: March 27. 2024 City of Carlsbad Letter to County of San Diego Request for
Community Roundtable Regarding Aircraft Operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport with
FM
Attachment C: December 29. 2021 County of San Diego Letter to FAA Regarding
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 253 of 383
Meeting Date:
To:
from:
Staff Contact:
Feb.27,2024
Mayor and Clty Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
iason.haber@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2958
CA Review ...Af..._
SubJect: Consider Discussing Proposed Revisions to the City's Code and General
Plan Relating to McClellan-Palomar Airport
Olstrlcts: All
Recomm~nded Actlol)
Consider a request from Mayor Blackburn to engage in a discussion regardi°' a request from
Citizens for a Friendly Airport relating to revisions to the City's Code and General Plan relating
to McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Exewtlve Summary
Mayor Blackburn submitted the attached email (E~hlbit 1) to the City Manager on Jan. 30, 2024,
requesting that the topics related to Palomar Airport that are cont a lned In the background
information sent by Hope Nelson, on behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport, on Jan. 3, 2024
(EKhibit 2), be placed on an upcoming City Council agenda.1
Fl$"1I Analysts
No city funding is being requested.
Ne1.tsteps
Staff wtll carry out the City Council's direction.
Environmental Evaluation
This action does not require environmental review because it does not constitute a project
within the meaning of the callfornia Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code
Section 21065 in that it has no potential 10 cause either a direct physical change in the
environment or a reasonably foreseeable Indirect physical change In the environment.
Exhibits
1. Jan. 30, 2024, request from Mavor Blackburn
2. Jan. 3, 2024, email from Hope Nelson
1 Carlsbad Munlclpal Cede Se<:tioo 1.20.060(C) stetu, "Items of busl~u may~ pl'Ke<I oa !he agenda bv any
member of the council, the dtV man;,e.er ot the dty ~uornev, or by council action. Councit-originat!d ,til!ms must
be submitted to the city manager not leu than seven clays befone the date of the oouncil meeting at which the
member cleslru the Item to appear on the a.ge<1da. Nothing ,n this section precludl'S a council member from
r~questlog council action lo place an ilem on the agenda for• future meetin.g.•
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 1 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 254 of 383
Shella Cobian
SVbJect: RE:
Ftom: Keith Blackburn <Keith.81ad:buro@?carlsbacka.aov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 4:49:29 PM
To: S<:ott Chadwick <Scott.Chadwick@carlsbadca.gov:>
$ubiect:
Good Aftemoon,
EJ(hlbit 1
Consistent wittl my aut11ority ~nder Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 1.20.060 (C), I am r~uestins that the topics
related to Palomar Airpon that are contained in ttie bactg.roond information sent by Hope Nelson on behalf of Citiiens
for a friendly Airport on January 3, 2024 be placed OI\ a future agenda for City Council discussion and consideration.
Thank vou,
Get Outlook for iOS
I Feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page 2 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 255 of 383
Shella Cobian
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Agendizing di5cussion of Palomar Airport
2023-01 ·02 C4FA Memo,andum to City_fnl (1) (1).pdf
From: Hope Nelson <hopefromthehood@gmall.com>
51!nt: Wedne5day, January 3, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Keith Blackburn <Kelth.Blackburo@carlsbadca.gov>
Exhibit 2
CA:: Pnya Bhat-Patel <Pnya.Bhat-Patel@carlsbadca.aov>; Melanie Burkholder <Melanie.Burkholder@carlsbadca.gov>;
Carolyn luna <Carolyn.luna@carlsbadc;>.£0¥>; Teresa Acosta <TeresaAcosta@carlsbadca.aev>; Jason Haber
</ason.ttaber@carlsbadca.gov>; Vickey Sy.ige <vickey.syage@gmail.com>; Mary Anne Viney
<maryanneVlney@dslextreme.com>: Shirley Anderson <sande,1S7St!paol.com>
Subject: Agendlliog discussion of Palomar Alrport
Dear Mayor Blackbum,
Many thanks for all you are doing regarding Palomar Airport, and for our discussion.
For clarity, we would like the Council to consider the following in their discussion.
Comer stones
• "Effective December 29, /978, Palomar Airport was formally annexed to the City of
Carlsbad, which will have final authority on any airfield expansion plans," (Palomar
Airport Summary Report, Jan 1979, General Information)
•San Diego Superior Court reaffirmed the City's responsibility in its January 2021 mling
in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego.
• The Annexation Agreement and the Court's ruling gives the City of Carlsbad the clear
responsibility to exercise the City's local control of Palomar Airport in the best interests
of Carlsbad.
• The City of Carlsbad Resolutions, passed in 2019, state with clarity, the City's position
regarding the Airport.
Suggested Imp)ementatlou Framework
Zoning
.Amend Carlsbad's zoning ordinances to include KK&R's (City's
outside legal counsel) 2018 recommendations.
o These recommendations were initially released for public
review in 2018 and approved but not adopted by the City.
,Adopt the definition of Airport Expansion consistent with the definitions of the
California Utilities Code (CPUC).
1 Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 3 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 256 of 383
o The CPUC is the permitting agency for the Airport.
• Prevent the creation of any inconsistencies regarding the process for an amended
CUP.
oEnsure a City Council vote for any CUP changes or additions.
oResolve any inconsistencies within the City's Municipal Code.
General Plan
.Memoriallze procedural requirements to support the Annexation Agreement which
specified Carlsbad's "final authority• and ,he Court's 2021 ruling, which states that
"the County waived its immunities".
• Memorialize the City of Carlsbad's official position on the expansion of Palomar
Airport.
Next Steps
• Place the discussion of the Suggested Implementation Framework on the Feb 6,
2024 City Council Agenda
• Direct staff to return to the City Council within 60 days for the City Council
discussion and potential action.
Documents from C4FA's attorneys are attached for your review. We provide them in the
interest of sharing research.
If the City of Carlsbad adopts these suggested changes, many recommended by their outside
counsel KK&R, our City Council will be able to ensure that the City's local control is honored
for generations to come.
Respectfully,
Hope Nelson, on behalf of Citizens for a Friendly Airport
CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless nize the sflnder and know thll content i
2
Feb. 27, 2024 ltem#10 Page 4 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 257 of 383
r-~ CHATTEN-BROWN V'CS:::: L AW G R O U P
City Council
Cily of Carlsbad
I 200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 2, 2024
Chatten•Brown Law Group, APC
Kal"'Yfl P•ttit I Aosoclato
32~ w. Wa,.l\ingtonsu .. ,. SUfto2tn
San0itgo,CA82t~
1<mpOohatt•nb<o-."'1lrOUl),com
P"""°: (Sl9) 31)3.14,jO
Re: Proposed Revisions to the City's Code and General Piao
Dear Councilmembers:
Our firm represents Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA). As you are well aware, in 2019, the
City Council adopted resolutions 2019-178 and 2019-179 to establish the City of Carlsbad's
position regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
C4FA seeks to work with the City to reintroduce the proposed ordinance that was released for
public review on Januill')' I 8, 2018 (EKhibit A), and initially approved but not adopted by the
City, along with additional revisions r~ommended by our office (Exhibit B), for City Council
consideration (together, "Proposed Ordinance"). Additionally, C4FA presents narrowly-tailored
revisions to Che City's General Plan, for the City's consideration. (Exhibit C, "Proposed General
Plan Amendment".)
Together, the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan Amendment would implement the
City Council's resolutions, absolve any potential inconsistencies in the City Municipal Code, and
memorialize the procedural requirements pursuant to the 1978 Annexation Agreement between
the City and County of San Diego, as detailed in the San Diego Superior Court's mling in C4FA
v. Collflty of San Diego.
Our office conducted extensive research into the Proposed Ordinance and Proposed General Plan
Amendment.
In Section I, we first provide a summary of the current requirements under the City's code. We
then summarize our recommended revisions to the City's code in Section II, and our
recommended amendment to the General Plan in Section Ill.
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Pages of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 258 of 383
City Counci I
January 2, 2024
Page2
I. Current Pr~edural Requirements
a. Obtainment of a CoJJ.di!ional US¢ Permit
The Annexation Agreement betwe<:n the City and County established the City's zoning and land
use authority over the airport. This includes the requirement lhat the County must obtain a
conditional use pennit ("CUP") from lhc City. As the Superior Court recently found:
(T]he County ... obtained CUP• 172 as a condition of the City of Carlsbad's
annexation of the airport and rezoning of the land for airport use. {citation.)
Notably, the Local Agency Fonnation Commission stated the following: "In order
lo comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, an appropriate
zoning designation must be placed upon the airport, and a Conditional Use Permit
must be obtained by the County. The City of Carlsbad and the County are in
agreement with this procedure." {citation.} Thus, the evidence in the administrative
record indicates that the County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its
immunities with respect to the airport.
(Superior Coun Case No. 37.20 l 8-00057624-CU-Tf •CTL, Janua,y 26, 2021 Ruling.)
The County's existing CUP-172 states that ~pennitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited 10
those outlined in Table I ... approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table I and/or
ellpansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Pemlit."
(County Resolution 1699 re CUP-172, p.3-S (1980).) Notably, the CUP•! 72 specifically omits
runway extensions from uses not requiring discretionary review, indicating that the County must
obtain the City's approval via the CUP process for any proposed runway eJ1tensions.
Thus, a CUP is required for any new or expanded airport uses. We are aware that the County has
not lreated "runway extensions" as "expansions." Therefore, we suggest revising the municipal
code to clarify that the language of''airport expansion•· mirrors Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5, to be consistent with the language and intent ofCUP-172, as well as state Jaw.
b. City Council Vole
Under our interpretation, the City's municipal code indicates an intent to require City Council
approval for airport-related CUP requests. Airp<Jrl uses are designated as "Process 3" throughout
the code, which holds Chat ~!t]he city council shall hear the matter." (Section 21.42.070.}
However, we identified potential inconsistencies in the code, thus requiring the Proposod
Ordinance to ensure clarity in the process. The Municipal Code provides: "An approved []
conditional use pennit may be amended pursuant ro the provisions of Section 21.54.125 of this
title. (Section 21.42.110 subd. (E).}
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page6of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 259 of 383
City Council
January 2. 2024
Page 3
Accordingly, Code Section 21.54.125 provides: "any approved development pennit may be
amended by following the some procedure required for the approval of said development permit
(except that if the city council approved the original pennit, lhe planning commission shall have
the authority to act upon the amendment) ... " (emphasis added.)
While the 1980 CUP-172 Resolution <>nly required approval from the Planning Commission, the
Municipal Code currently requires City Council approval for any airpcn CUP.
Thus, it is not entirely clear what process is currently required for any CUP amendment, even for
a proposed expansion of airport uses under the e;,i;isting CUP. We believe this necessitates the
Proposed Ordinance, including the new additions proposed by C4FA.
II. O"eniew of Proposed Ordinance
The ordinance that was proposed by City staff in 2018 prop<>sed the following changes:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance text and define "ai,pott."
• Allow an airport with approval of a conditional use pennit by the City Council only
within lite boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport proposed on the City's Zoning Map.
• Prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the City.
We reviewed the ordinance, and suggested the additional revisions:
• Amend Zoning Ordinance 1ext to clarify the definition of "airport expansion," consistent
with slate law (Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5)
• Prevent the creation of any inconsistencies regarding the process for an amended CUP.
Ill. Oveniew of Proposed General Plan Amendment
We also believe that a General Plan Amendment to cleady set forth the process would bring
great advantages to lhe public and furure elected decisionmakers. While there are costs
associated with updating or amending the municipal code and General Plan, a cleat
memorialization of the City's procedures would prevent any confusion, application of the wrong
process, or use of loopholes several years down the road.
The City•s General Plan already includes the following policy:
Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative
action that authorizes e1<pansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized
to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate.
(City of Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use & Community Design Element, 2-45; see also ~tion
21.S3.0l S, Carlsbad Municipal Code.)
feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page 7 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 260 of 383
City Council
January 2, 2024
Page4
Thus, we believe that the General Plan should be amended to establish the following clear
policies of the City:
• Any airport expansion requires a CUP from the City.
• EKpansion will be defined as consistent with the definition in the Public Utilities Code.
• Any CUP request-whether it is fo1 a new CUP or an amendment to a CUP -for airport
expansion requires a City Council vote.
• The Ci1y of Carlsbad supports the 8-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan Palomar Airport
Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension, and opposes the County
Board of Supervis01's D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative.
We have included our proposed revisions in Exhibit C (revisions in blue text).
IV. Conclusion
Our office has spent considerable time researching the Proposed Ordinance, which is primarily
the product of research conducted by the City's prior consultant. KK&R. Our finn only had two
minor proposed revisions. The Proposed Ordinance would implement Cit:y Council resolutions
2019-178 and 2019-179, and ensure 1hat the correct procedure is clear in the City's code.
We also thoroughly believe that a narrow General Plan Amendment is needed to memorialize the
City Council's resolutions to maintain the aiJJ)ort's current B-11 designation without any runway
extension, as well as the required decision-making process that is set out in the City's code.
Thank you for your lime and consideration of C4FA 's proposal. We respectfully request a
meeting with the City staff to further discuss the Proposed Ordinance and General Plan
Amendmenl, especially to receive the City's input.
We are available at your earliest convenience. Please do nol hesitate to call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Pettit
Josh Chatten-Brown
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page8of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 261 of 383
Exhibit A
Feb. 27. 2024 Item #10 Page 9 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 262 of 383
PUBLIC NOTICE
TO INTERESTEO PARTIES:
C cityof
Carlsbad
Please be advised that the City of Carlsbad Is considering text amendments to its Local Coastal Proaram
(lCPl as summarized belGw. This !.CP amendmeflt is being proposed by the City of Carlsbad and is
curtently under review. This notice hereby opens a six,week review period after which the Planning
CommlSSlon and City Council will consider all comments and act on ttie proposed lCP amendment. The
Planning CommissiGn hearing is e•pected to t.lke place In sp1ing 2019 and will be duly noticed. The City
Council hearint Is expected to take place In spring 2019 and will be duly noticed.
Copies of the lCP amendment are available for revlew at the followil\g locations: (U Carlsbad Planning
OMsioll, 163S Faraday Ave<'\ue; (21 City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Vllla&e Orive; (3) c.-irlsbad Main
library, l77S Dove Lane; {4) Georgina Cole library, 1250 Carlsbad VIIJaie Drive; and (5} the callfornla
Coastal Commission, 7575 Metropolitan Orive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92103-4402, The lCP
Amendment is also posted on the city's website at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/servlces/depts/pJanning/agendas.asp.
PROPOSt:D LCP AMENDMENT SUMMAll'II'
tCPA ?018-0001 (PU8 2018-0022) -Zoning Code AmeMment -Airports
The City's Zonins Ordinanet! Is the lmplementil\g ordinance for the City's LCP. Accordinsly, the lCP
amendment is necessary to ensure consistency betweeri the City's proposed amended Zoning Ordinance
and Its Local CoasuJ Prosram. This specific Zoning Code Amendment is as follows:
The proposed amendment would amend Zoning Ordinance text and define •airport,• allow an airport with
approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport proposed on lhe City's Zoning Map, and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other
properties within the City.
Cl\anges proPosed to the Zoning Ordinance text are attached. Please note the airport and proposed
boundary around it are outside the Coastal Zone. further information about McClellan-Palomar Airport
and related City and County actions is available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/residentslairportmasterplan.asp.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, in the Planning Division at (760)
602•4681 or scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov. Written comments should be sent to the Planning OMslon at
1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, California 92008.
PUBLISH DATE: January 18, 2018
PUBLISH OATE FOR U·T SAN OIEGO:
PUBLISH DATE FOR COAST NEWS:
Community & Economic Development
Plannl111 Division
January 18, 2018
January 18, 2018
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8.560 faK
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 10of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 263 of 383
Proposed text chanaff to tfle Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 211
Zoning Code Amendment • Afrpom
ZCA 2018-0001 / ZC2018-0002 / l~A 2018-0001 {PU82018·0022)
Amendment5 to Ch~ptcr n .OIi Definitions
Chapter 21.04 (Definitions) is proposed to be amended by adding new Section 2U)4.024 to define
"airport" as follows:
21.04.024 Airport
•Airport'' mi:;ms any area of land or water which is used. or intended for use, for the landing and take-off
of aircraft. and any appurtenant area, wtiich are used. or Intended for use. for airoort buildings or other
airport facilities or rjahts of way. and all airport bulldings and facilities located thereon, Airport safety
areas and zones are inch><fed wlthlp this definition. This definition shall be used by the City when applying
any requirements of the California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.
Amendments to Chapter 21.07 E-A EMclu~iv~ Agriculture /one
Section 21.07.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the E-A, Exclusive Aarlcultural Zone) Is proposed to be
amended by deleting "alrpons" as follows:
Use
Amendments to Ch;,pter 21.29 C-T Co,nmercial Tourist Zone
Section 21.29.030 Table A (Permitted uses in the C•T, Commercial Tcurist Zone) is propMed to ~
amended l1y deleting "airports• as follows:
Use
Feb. 27, 2024 ltem#1t>
1
Page 11 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 264 of 383
I
Amendments to Chapter 21 30 C-M Heavy Commcrc,aJ -l11n1tcd Industrial Zone
Section 21.30.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the C·M, Heavy Commercial -limited Industrial Zone) is
proposed to be amended b',' deleting "airports• as follows:
, .... ,
Use
Amendments to Chapter 21.l2 M lndustri,,I Zone
Section 21.32.010 Table A (Permitted uses in the M, lndustrlal Zone) is proposed to be amended by
changing "aitports" to "airport" and by adding Note 3 as follows:
I Airports (see note 3 below!
Use
Notes:
3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within
the bounda,y of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the cltx.
Amendments to Chapt!'r 21.34 P·M Planned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.0ZO Table A (Permitted uses in thi.> P•M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
bv changing "airports" to "airport" and adding Nole 6 as follows:
I Airports bee note 6 b-e-lo_w_l __ u_s_e __ --------1--P-1-1-C-~-P--il-A-c_c-11
Notes:
6. Permitted by issuance of a condltiorul use permit by the city council and only within
the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the 2oning map of the city.
Feb. 27, 2024 ltemlllO
2
Page 12 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 265 of 383
Exhibit B
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 13 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 266 of 383
Addltlonal tnl changes to the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Tille 21)
Zoning Code Amendment • Airports
Amendments lo Chapter :n .04 (Definitions)
21.04.140. I Expansion.
"E;,:pansion" means to enlarge or increase lhe size of an existing structure or use including !he
physical size of the property, building. parking and other improvements. In the context of
airports, "expansion" includes the ~guisition of runWl!}'..J!!Plection zones, or of any interest in
land for the purpose of any other e11pansion. cons1cue1ion ofa new runway, extension or
realignment of an existing runway, or any other e;,:pansion of the ai rport's physical facilities for
the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to these purposes.
Amendmtnts to Chapter 21.32 M l11dustrlal Zone
Section 21.32.010 Table A (Pemiitted uses in the M, Industrial Zone) is proposed to be amended
by changing "airports" to "airport" and by adding Note 3 as follows:
[No change to Proposed Ordinance's Table revisions]
Notes:
3. Permitted by issuance of a ronditional use permit by the city council and only within 1he
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use pennit amendment shall also require a vote by rhe city council.
notwithstanding any other sections of 1his code, including Sections 21.42.110 and 21.54.125.
Amendments lo Chapter 21.34 P-M Planned Industrial Zone
Section 21.34.020 Table A (Permitted uses in the P-M, Planned Industrial Zone) is proposed to
be amended by changing "aill)Orts" to "airport" and adding Note 6 as follows:
[No change to Proposed Ordinance's Table revisions)
Notes:
6. Pennitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only wilhin the
boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city. The approval
of any conditional use permit amendment shall also require a votl: by the city council.
!!2!_withstanding any other se<:tions of this code, including Sections 21.42.110 and 21.$4.125.
Feb. 27, 2024 Item #10 Page 14 of 16
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 267 of 383
Exhibit C
Feb.27,2024 Item #10 Page 15 of ts
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 268 of 383
a•P,3!> Prohibit approval of any zone <henge, general plan amendment or
other leglslatlva action that autl\Orizes expa11$10n of Mc.<lellen-Palo•
mar Alrport, unless authorized to do w by a majority vote of the
CarUbad electorate. (S<!ction 21.SJ.QlS. Car~d Municipal Code.)
a•P.40 Rtquire-.any prQpotal for an. o:pan1\on O< ~lrporl us:it.s to obtain o (-0ndition1l vk' permit
purn.11n1 to• City Coun<:1I vott.
••P.tol P<nM npan,ion only within the currtnt bound,ry of McCl,11,n Paloma, Alrpott.
2-P.4l lltiliu th• Stal< Public IJtilitie, <:Ode dtfin1llon of airport upon.ion, ..+itch
inchtdes the: acquisition of tun way prO(t(tion tones. or of arty 11Htt~sl tn Jar\d
lot the potpo~e of any Qthe-1 upans:1on. '9nnruction of a new runway.
ext<"ns.ion or real1gnmtnt o( ert c-xisUng nmw,y, or any other c-xpanJion o(thc
elrporf5 ph)'$k,ll r,dhtiu for the purpost of accomplishing or whh.h ar~
rela1ed 1011>¢1e put!)(>$!$.
2,P-43 Oppose the Mcl,llan-Palomar Airpoe1 Master Plan l).tf! Modifi•d Standard,
Complian<:t Ahernili\•e design clauificition. CFttsolution No.1019-178.)
t,P.44 Suppor11h, 11-1 I Enhanced Ahn:nativ,M<Cl,11,n,P,lomar Airpon Ma,ter Plan
dtSignd,~tft~tiQn, with no runw.1yutemion. (Resolution No 2019· 179.)
Feb.27,2024 ltem#lO
General Plan
Page 16of 16 2-4$
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 269 of 383
March 27, 2024
Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports
County of San Diego• Airports Administration
1960 Joe Crosson Drive
El Cajon, CA 92020
C cityof
Carlsbad
SUBJECT: Request for Community Roundtable on Aircraft Operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport
Dear Mr. Abbott:
I am writing to formally request that San Diego County Airports submit a proposal to the Federal
Aviation Administration to convene a community roundtable aimed at addressing the growing
community concerns surrounding aircraft operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad.
As you are aware, Palomar Airport's operations directly impact the residents and quality of llfe in the
City of Carlsbad. Therefore, ft Is important that the city, county, and FAA collaborate to address the
community's concerns al')d work towards sustainable solutiOns.
During recent discussions with county staff, and through public comments made at the
March 21, 2024, meeting of the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee, city staff have shared the city's
position that there is a pressing need to address a perceived increase in aircraft noise and deviations
from the county's recommended flight procedures.
Whlle the county recommends adherence to Palomar Airport's "Fly Friendly" 24-Hour Voluntary Noise
Abatement Procedures, It Is evident that community members feel these procedures are not being
followed consistently. This disconnect between recommended procedures and actual operations
underscores the necessity for a collaborative effort to allgn stakeholder expectations and reconcile
differences to mitigate noise Impacts where possible.
The City of Carlsbad acknowledges that the FAA maintains sole authority over flight safety and air
traffic control procedures at Palomar Airport. Through the proposed community roundtable, we aim
to Identify areas of concern and explore opportunities for cooperation to address the community's
concerns while ensuring safe and efficient airport operations.
The city stands ready to work alongslde the county and FAA to engage airport stakeholders In a
meaningful dialogue. I urge you to consider this request and take proactive steps towards convening
the proposed community roundtable. Together, we can work towards a solution that balances the
needs of all stakeholders while preserving the quality of life for Carlsbad residents.
City of carlsbad City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200Carlsbad Vil!age Drive• Carlsbad, CA 92008 • 442-339·2820
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 270 of 383
nk you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and cooperation
dressing this pressing issue.
SCott Chadwick
City Manager
cc: County of Sao Diego Board of Supervisors
Sarah Aghassl, Interim Chief Administrative Officer -County of San Diego
Palomar Airport Advisory Committee Members
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla
U.S. Senator laphonza Butler
U.S. Congressman Mike Levin
Larrl Frelow, Community Engagement Officer• FAA Western Pacific Region Administrator's Office
John Otto, Airport Manager (McClellan-Palomar Airport)
City of Carlsbad City Council
Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
City of Cllrlsbad Oty Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive• Carlsbad, CA 92008 • 442·339·2820
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 271 of 383
December 29, 2021
Mark McClardy, Director
LANO USE A1'40 ENVIRONMENT GROUP
1eoG PA¢1f1C HIGHWAY, ROOM 21l, SAN DIEGO, CA t2101
($191$:Jl~m
""""'t.dcouoly.ce.~0.,1:u.at
Office of Airports, Western-Pacific Region
Federal Aviation Administration
777 S. Aviation Blvd, Ste. 150 e, Segundo, CA 90245
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT NOISE CONCERNS
Dear Mr. McClardy,
Earlier this month the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Masterplan, including lengthening of the runway and safety enhancements. I am
reaching out to you on behalf of the County of San Diego (County) wlth a request that the Federal
Aviation Administration (fM) work with us to address ongoing aircraft noise concems at
McClellarrPalomar {Palomar) Airport.
Palomar Is owned and operated by the County and located In the city of Carlsbad. It is a
transportation hub, an emergency services facility, an economic driver that supports local jobs
and generates mlllions of dollars in tax revenues annually.
While recognizing the contributions of Palomar, It Is also important for our agencies to oonslder
oommunity concerns and work together to resolve these issues to the extent possible as good
neighbors. The most frequent and persistent concern at Palomar is aircraft noise, especially
during the night. Members of the community have shared how nighttime aircraft noise has
affected their quality of life, including how chronic sleep disruptions have had negative effects
on childhood learning, Job performance, health, and wellbelng.
Based on re1:ent studies completed by the County, aircraft noise does not exceed the tecflnical
threshold the FM oonslders significant. However, from a practical standpoint, aircraft noise at
night remains a community ooncem. one that impac1s quality of fife. In response. the County
Board of Supervisors has asked if mandatory quiet hours can be established at Palomar or if
addltlonal fees can be imposed on aircraft operating during voluntary quiet hours. Since answers
to these questions are within the purview of the FM, we are seeking your response to these
requests and any additional guidance you may have on solutions to the noise concerns.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 272 of 383
Mr. McClardy
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
December 20, 2021
Page2
If you would like details on the noise studies and/or the measures the County is currently
employlng to address these concems. please contact Cameron Humphres, Director of Airports,
wi1h the Department of Public WorKs at (619) 318-7091.
The County thanks you for your continued commitment to providing a safe and efficient
aerospace system across the oountry. and we look forward to your response on how we can
wortc in partnership to better address community concerns related to aircraft noise.
Sincerely. s~~
SARAH E. AGHASSI
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nathan Fletcher, Chair
Supervisor Nora Vargas, Vice Chair
Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer
Supervisor Jim Desmond
Cameron Humphres, Director of Airports
Caroline Smith, Director. Office of Strategy and Intergovernmental Affairs
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 273 of 383
ATTACHMENT B
July 8, 2024, County of San Diego Public Comment Letter
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 274 of 383
WllLIAM P. MORGAN, P.E.
INTERIM DIRECTOR
July 8, 2024
PUBLIC WORKS
SS10 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 410. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9212~1237
(MS) 694-2212
Mike Strong, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PUBLIC COMMENT TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING
CODE, ANO LOCAL COASTAL PLAN RELATING TO PALOMAR AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Strong,
The County of San Diego (County) appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter in response
to the City of Carlsbad (City) request for public comment on amending the General Plan, Zoning
Code and Local Coastal Program for new and expanded Airport uses (GPA2024-
0001/ZCA2024--0003/LCPA2024--0021 ). As owner and operator of McClellan-Palomar Airport
(Airport), the County believes the City may inadvertently restrict certain safety improvements
approved by the County Board of Supervisors (Board) when the Master Plan Update (Master
Plan) for the Airport was adopted. These improvements include the extension of the existing
runway, the installation of an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), and the acquisition
of future Runway Protection Zones (RPZ). These improvements were adopted by the Board to
improve safety for existing Airport users. Therefore, the County requests the City reconsider or
modify the current proposal in order to not impede the implementation of the safety
improvements included in the Master Plan. The County looks forward to collaborating with the
City to ensure the continued safe use of the Airport is prioritized.
Master Plan
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the County of San Diego to have long-range
planning documents for the airports it owns and operates. On December 8, 2021, the County
Board adopted the Master Plan and associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) for the Airport. The Master Plan update. including the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), was
developed according to FAA guidelines, and identified safety improvements needed to
accommodate the design critical aircraft based on current and forecasted aviation activity over
the 20-year planning period. The FAA refers to design critical aircraft as a specific type of
airplane that is used as a reference or standard when designing and planning an airport's
facilities and infrastructure. According to the FAA. the design critical aircraft must have over 500
SANDIEGOCOONTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 275 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page 2
annual operations (take-offs and landings) at an airport. At the time the Master Plan was
approved, the Gulfstream G650, a D-111 aircraft, accounted for over 700 annual operations and
was identified as the "design critical aircraft" for the Airport. To safely accommodate this aircraft,
the Board approved an ultimate D-111 modified design standard as part of the Master Plan, which
includes changes to RPZ and a possible runway shift and extension, all within the current
footprint of airport property. No legal challenges were brought to the December 2021 Master
Plan and PEIR approval.
The Master Plan prioritizes the safety of existing users over all other planning criteria. The focus
of the Master Plan on the safety of existing users was largely motivated by a desire to address
an accident that occurred at the Airport on January 25, 2006, in which four people were killed.
The desire to help provide an extra margin of safety for existing airport users motivated the
proposals in the Master Plan to add the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), runway
length, and a runway shift as part of a D-111 modified standard. Again, the County's primary
planning criteria for the Master Plan was to improve safety for existing users.
County Concerns with City's Proposed Actions
The City's proposed actions attempt to implement land use restrictions that could block actions
needed for the County to achieve safely standards at the Airport. The proposed restrictions have
two parts:
1 . Define airport expansion broadly to include any relocation or extension of the existing
runway.
2. Prohibit acquiring RPZ. which is a federal safety zone meant to protect people and
property on the ground, without a use permit amendment or City-approved plan.
The restrictions also attempt to limit Airport uses to the existing Airport footprint as shown on the
current City zoning maps, which do not include any RPZ areas. These restrictions, if fully
implemented, could prohibit, or delay the County from implementing safety improvements for
aircraft currently using the Airport.
The County acknowledges that some community members in Carlsbad have been concerned
about the implementation of the safety improvements identified in the Master Plan and perceive
that implementing the approved D-111 design standard will encourage a change in Airport use.
FAA grant assurances make clear that the County cannot restrict the type, kind, or class of
aircraft that use the Airport. More operators of D-11I aircraft may decide to use the Airport if it is
improved to accommodate them more safely. However, it is also true that the County limited the
scope of the Master Plan to restrict this from happening. No property acquisition was included
in the Master Plan. No significant increase in airplane support facilities for storage, repair, or
fueling was included in the Master Plan. Implementing a D-111 design standard includes a runway
shift that will significantly reduce aircraft parking by eliminating the entire north side ramp. Again.
the Master Plan prioritizes the safety of existing users over all other planning criteria.
SANOtEGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 276 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page3
Response to C4FA Comments
The County is aware that Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA} sent an email on January 3,
2024, requesting that the City amend its general plan. zoning ordinance, and local coastal plan
to prevent the implementation of the D-111 safety improvements. On February 27, 2024 (10), the
City Council directed City staff to take concurrent action based on C4FA's proposal. The County
responded to the City Council's February direction to City staff in a letter dated and sent April
23, 2024, explaining some of the practical and legal problems with the position advocated for by
C4FA (Attachment A). Without waiving or limiting the County's right to object to the City's
proposal on other grounds not specifically identified in this or the April 23rd comment letter, the
County wishes to highlight a few instances where reliance on C4FA's proposal will likely hinder
the safety objectives of the Master Plan by relying on unsubstantiated legal arguments and
expanding the City's jurisdiction in a manner that conflicts with the County's vested rights under
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-172. This would ultimately be preempted by FAA safety
requirements and federal law.
1. City Efforts to Condition Runway Relocation, Runway Extension and RPZ Acquisition on
City Approval Is Preempted by Federal Law:
The County approval of the 0-111 modified standard improved the safety and efficiency of
the Airport for existing users. The Master Plan identified shifting the runway to the north
to meet FAA safely standards for wingtip separation for the design critical aircraft between
Taxiway A and the runway, and the installation of EMAS to meet FAA design
requirements for runway safety. The acquisition of RPZ is necessary to implement federal
safety standards to protect people and property on the ground. The City's general plan,
zoning, and local coastal plan amendment seeks to restrict RPZ acquisition and condition
any runway extension or relocation on obtaining prior approval of the City. The City's
proposed amendments to oontrol County efforts to meet airfield safety improvements is
preempted by federal law.
Discussion
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los Angeles {91~ Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d
1338 The City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that required the Burbank Airport to
submit every proposed runway and taxiway project to the City Planning Commission for
prior approval. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and then ruled in favor
of Burbank Airport on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals upholding the summary
judgment in favor of the Burbank Airport addressed the soope of federal preemption under
49 USC § 1301 et seq. as follows:
"The problem with this Ordinance is that it conditions the construction and
reconstruction of taxiways and runways on the prior approval of the City. This
the City may not do. The proper placement of taxiways and runways is critical
to the safety of takeoffs and landings and essential to the efficient
management of the surrounding airspace. The regulation of runways and
SANOtEGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 277 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page4
taxiways is thus a direct interference with the movements and operations of
aircraft and is therefor& preempted by federal law.
Stated simply, a non-proprietor municipality may not exercise its police power
to prohibit, delay, or otherwise condition the construction of runways end
taxiways at a non-city-owned airport.• (p. 1341.)
The City proposed to amend tts zoning ordinance to apply its definition of airport which
includes any safety zones to the interpretation of Public Utilities Code section 21661.6.
This Section provides that prior to the acquisition of any land by a political subdivision for
the purpose of expanding or enlarging an airport in a city that the airport proprietor must
submit an acquisttion plan to the City. Upon approval of the plan. the statute provides that
acquisition may begin. The County does not agree that Section 21661.6 applies to the
purchase of safety zones for runway relocations or extension completed entirely on
Airport property. Interpreting the statute in the manner proposed by the City would trigger
federal preemption.
Twp. of Tinicum v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. Phil., 2010} 737 F. Supp. 2d 367
Plaintiffs a township and county asserted that a Pennsylvania statute, 53 PA Stat. Ann.
Section 14161. required their consent for the purchase of property in their jurisdictions
needed to extend a runway to improve the safe and efficient operation of the airport.
Granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the airport operator, the district
court found that the State statute was preempted by federal law. Relying on the opinion
in Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, supra, the district court held that,
·section 141$1 is preempted for the same reason the ordinance of the Los Angeles City
Council was preempted." Similarly, in United States v. New Haven (2nd Cir., 1971) 447
F .2d 972, the federal court of appeals found that a district court had properly granted a
preliminary injunction finding a State statute that required the consent of a non-proprietor
municipality for the acquisition of clear zone in its jurisdiction pre-empted by federal law.
Summary
Federal law preempts the City's efforts to amend its General Plan, Zoning Ordinances,
and Local Coastal Plan with the intension to prohibit or require the County to seek
approval for the relocation or extension of the runway, the installation of EMAS, and the
acquisition of RPZ in support of the implementation of the D-111 safety improvements
approved by the Board.
2. Airport Expansion Should Not Include RPZAcguisition:
RPZ are trapezoidal safety zones at both ends of a runway to protect people and property
on the ground from the risk of an aircraft accident. The FAA encourages airport operators
to acquire RPZ to avoid incompatible land uses. The scope of required RPZ is defined by
the FAA and can change even if there is no change in the facilities or users of an airport
as standards are revised by the FAA over time.
SANOIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 278 of 383
City of Carlsbad
Julys, 2024
Pages
The City is proposing to amend its zoning ordinance to prohibit the acquisition of any RPZ
outside the existing zoning map boundary of the Airport. The proposal does this by
confining allowed Airport uses to the existing zoning map boundary of the Airport and
defining the tenns airport and expansion as including safety zones. Under the City's
current proposal. a zoning amendment would be required to allow for RPZ acquisition.
These same definitions are included in the proposed changes to the City's general plan.
City Ordinance section 21.53.015(a) provides that. "The city council shall not approve any
zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize an expansion of the airporl without having first been authorized to do so by a
majority vote of the qualified electors of the city.• The County does not agree that the
proposed changes would trigger Section 21.53.015(a). or that action to allow the City to
prohibit the acquisition of RPZ can be implemented by the City.
The City Attorney concluded in a May 3. 1993. letter to th& County that acquisition of
property for "clear zone" (the predecessor zone to RPZ) was not an expansion where it
could be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the
redesignation or rezoning of land (Attachment B) Based on this interpretation, the County
was historically free to acquire Clear Zone or RPZ without a zone change or vote under
City Ordinance 21.53.015.
Discussion
The scope of the tenn "expansion" proposed by C4FA and used by the City was review&d
and reject&d in the January 26, 2021. ruling of the San Diego Superior Court (Court) in
Citizens for a Friendly Airporl v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2018-00057824-CU-
TT-CTL (hereinafter Ruling). In the Ruling, the Court upheld the County's interpretation
of "expansion• when it held that. "the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of
the term "expansion" and that no amendment [of CUP-172} was required on the basis of
the proposed changes set forth in the Project [i.e., Master Plan approval]."
Summary
The City's proposed actions to redefine the term "expansion" to include acquiring RPZ
without any change in the use of the land acquired is contrary to Section 21.53.015 and
the Ruling. Moreover, acquiring property for RPZ is within the scope of cases that have
found State and local regulations of Airports to be preempted by federal law. (See, for
example, United States v. New Haven (2nd Cir., 1971) 447 F.2d 972).) The proposal to
amend the City's General Plan and zoning to effectively prohibit acquisition of RPZ
unnecessarily risks public safety by encouraging incompatible land uses and restricting
actions the County can reasonably take to eliminate the risk. The County notes that the
restriction applies even if there is no change in the currant B-11 design status of the Airport.
3. Amendment to CUP-172 Not Requjred for Runway Relocation or Extension:
The City adopted C4FA's proposal based on the premise that an amendment of CUP-
172 is requir&d for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway extension was
"specifically omitted" from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172. C4FA's
SANOIEGOCOUNTV.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 279 of 383
City of Cartsbad
July 8, 2024
Page6
legal counsel states that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of "airport
expansion• in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 which is only applicable to State-
issued airport operating permits.
Discussion
This argument was reviewed and rejected in the Ruling. The Ruling addressed a
challenge brought to the County's initial approval of the Master Plan on October 10, 2018
(hereinafter Project). The Project included approval of facilities changes such as the
relocation of existing taxiways, installation of EMAS, and a runway extension located
entirely within existing Airport property. The Court rejected the assertion that an
amendment to CUP-172 is required for the proposed runway extension when it found.
"the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion" and that
no amendment (of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth
in the Project.•
This decision is consistent with the long-standing approach between the City and County
through regular coordination stretching back decades. In February 1993, the County
coordinated with City staff about proposed facilities changes regarding commercial
aviation service. In response, by letter dated May 3, 1993, then City Attorney. Ron Ball,
explained that improvement offacilities per Table I of CU P-172 entirely on Airport property
would not require a use permit amendment. Table I of CUP-172 does not "specifically
omit" runway extensions as claimed by C4FA's legal counsel. Instead, Table 1 provides
that, "Airport structures and facilities that are necessary to the operation of the airport and
to the control of air traffic in relation thereto, include, but [are] not necessarily limited to,
the following: ... [sic)".
The list in Table I of CUP-172 is not exclusive and is neither specific nor limits runway
extensions. Moreover, a determination that the Project runway extension is included
within Table 1 of CUP-172 is reasonable as ii avoids federal preemption issues that would
otherwise arise. (See, for example, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Los
Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338 (City ordinance regulating taxiway and runway
relocations preempted by federal law); Twp of Tinicium v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. PA,
2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d 367 (City ordinance limiting runway extension preempted by
federal law).) It is clear that amending the City's zoning ordinance and general plan to
include the definition of "airport expansion" set forth in Public Utilities Code section
21664.5 is not. as C4FA asserts, necessary to effectuate the "intent and meaning of CUP-
172." It is in fact contrary to the meaning of that term as used in CUP-172.
If the City were to nevertheless decide to amend its zoning ordinances and general plan
to include the definition of "airport expansion" contained in Public Utilities Code Section
21664.5, these changes cannot properly be applied to the County. While the County was
found in the Ruling to have waived its immunities under Government Code section 53090
when it obtained CUP-172, the Ruling did not find that the waiver extends to subsequently
enacted City ordinances. Moreover, the Ruling does not address the County's vested
rights under CUP-172 or the scope of federal pre-emption.
SANDIEGOCOUNlY.GOY
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 280 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page 7
Amending the City zoning ordinance and the general plan to include the definition of
"airport expansion" as outlined in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts,
to bring City requirements into compliance with State law. The term "airport expansion•
used in Section 21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained. It does not
establish a generally applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states that, "As used in this
section, "airport expansion" inc/udes ... acquisition of runway protection
zones ... construction of a new runway ... {and] extension or realignment of an existing
runway ... ." (emphasis added.) Since the definition of airport expansion as used in
Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport permits. there is no basis to apply it
broadly to City Ordinance section 21.53.015 and CUP-172. As noted above, this reading
is inconsistent with the definition of the term expansion used in Section 21.53.015 and
CUP-172.
FAA. Grant A$syrances
FAA Grant Assurance 5 compels the County to "not take or permit any action which would
operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers {necessary to comply with its obligations as
an airport sponsor] .. . and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding
rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such petformance .... " Federal grant
assurances may force the County to challenge the City's proposals. C4FA's position as adopted
by the City has its origin in a misunderstanding of the scope of the action taken by the Board
when it approved the D-111 modified standards option for the Master Plan. The Board's Master
Plan approval was made to improve the safety of the Airport for existing users.
Closing
The County Masterplan has identified the need to shift the existing runway to meet federal safety
standards for taxiway and runway separation. The FAA has identified EMAS and acquisition of
RPZ as required safety improvements.
Federal preemption of local land use ordinances is extended when the ordinances impair the
federal interest in air safety or conflict with an airport sponsor's obligations under federal Jaw.
The City's efforts to amend its General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and Local Coastal Program.
with the intention to prohibit or require the County to seek approval for support of the
implementation of the D-111 safety improvements approved by the Board, conflict with federal
interests. These actions also conflict with the County's vested rights under CUP-172. The County
requests the City reconsider or modify the current proposal in order to not impede the
implementation of the safety improvements included in the Master Plan.
The County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed code amendments for new
and expanded airport uses and we look forward to future discussions regarding these comments.
If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports at
Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov or Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel at
Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov.
SANDtEGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 281 of 383
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 2024
Page8
Sincerely,
WILLIAM P. MORGAN, P.E., Interim Director
Department of Public Works
cc: Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports
Matthew Parr, Interim Director. Economic Development and Government Affairs
Tom Bosworth, County Counsel
Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, City of Carlsbad
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 23, 2024, County of San Diego Letter to City of Carlsbad in Response
to the City's Proposed Actions
Attachment B: May 3, 1993, City Attorney Letter to the County
$AN0IEGOCOUNTY.GOV
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 282 of 383
CITY OF CARLSBAD
I~ CARL$!1AO VILLAGE ORIYI:
RONALO R. BALL
CITY ATl'<ll'J<€'t
CAfllS8AO, CALIFORNIA 92001H989
(619) 434·2891
KAREN J. HIRATA
O~•UTY OTY ATI'OA~EY
Robert P. Olislagers, CAE Airport Manager
Department of Public Works
McClellan-Palomar Airport
2198 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, California 92008
FAX: (619) 434-a387
May J, 1993
C
RE: OPERATION OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21.53,015
REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS TO CITY VOTERS PRIOR
l'Q CilY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE AC'I'ION FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION
Dear Mr. Oli~lagers:
Based on our discussions over the last several months and your report entitled, "McClellan-Palomar Airport" Terminal Development
and Space Needs Analysi$ dated February 15, 1993, I understand the county is contemplating accolllll!odating those needs in a number of
ways including the following options:
l. "Construct facilities at the present Palomar Airport site
which calls for demolition of current facilities on the site and construction of new facilities in their place.
Due to the relative small size, consideration will be given to the cost or a multi-story facility to
accommodate the terminal and parking."
2. Acquisition of a new site contiguous to the airport boundaries tor construction. This alternative calls for the acquisition
o·t airport adjacent property and the location of a new terminal and parking facilities on it. This alternative will
allow.-phasing of air carrier operations separate from general aviation operations.
3. It is my further understanding that the county is considering acquiring two lots {lots 42 and 50 shown on the attached site
plan for the Carlsbad Airport Center) at the westerly end ot the runway for clear zone pu~oses.
The question presented is whether or not any or all of these alternatives will require submittal to City voters.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 283 of 383
. ,• C . C
The site plan, land uses and conditions ot approval for the Palomar Airport are set forth in the conditional use pennit {CUP 172) approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on September 24, 1980.
I have enclosed a copy of that use permit for your file&. According to Table l of the COP, certain structures and facilities are permitted without the need for additional discretionary review.
For example, such structures and facilities include airport administration buildings and airport passenger terminal facilities. Other uses, such as incidental eating and drinking establishments, require approval by the Carlsbad Planning COl!llllission.
In addition, a petition was circulated among Carlsbad voters in
1980 and presented to the Council on August 5, 1980. At that time,
our office indicated that the county would need City council
approval of expansion if it involved the acquisition of additional property in which case the petition ordinance would require prior voter approval. An expansion of existing property would not be affected by the ordinance. On August 12, 1980, this ordinance was
adopted which is set forth in full:
"2 l. 53. 015 . Voter authorization required for airport expansion.
(a) The city council shall not approve any zone change, general plan amendment or any other legislative enactlllent
necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in tha city nor shall the city com.mence any action or spend any fund'-preparatory to or in anticipation of such approvalc without
having been first authorized to do so by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for
such proposes.
(b) This section was proposed by initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the city council without submission to the voters and it shall not be repealed or amended except by
a vote of the people,"
Therefore, construction at the present site would not require legislative action by the city Council and would not require a vote of the people. Alnendment of COP 172 would be required if any of the structures or facilities are not those listed in Section I(a) of Table l of the CUP dated September 24, 1980.
Acquisition of real property outside the boundaries of the plot plan approved as Exhibit A to CUP 172 would require redesignation in Carlsbad's General Plan and rezoning in its zoning ordinance
both of which are legislative actions. Therefore, the property acquisition for structures and facilities related to the airport
would require a vote of the people.
It is my further understl!.nding that the proposed acquisition o~ property for a "clear zone" would not require facilities or structures and would not necessitate redesignation or rezoning of Carlsbad's existing planning documents. As such, no legislative action of the City Council is required and no vote of the people
would be required for these acquisitions.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 284 of 383
• •
,.
/.
C (
,' Should you have any questions or need additional infomation
/ regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
/ ~:ruly yours,
rmh
enclosure
c: Mayor and City council city Manager
{ ~,e • ,='-? Q.. ~
RONALD R. BALL City Attorney
Colnl!lunity Development Director
Planning Director
From:Redman Ralph
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Gonzalez Amy; Knack Sjohnna; Abbott, Jamie; Gowens Ed; Noyce Sidney; Hollarn Garret
Subject:RE: ALUC consistency determination application - City of Carlsbad’s proposed amendments to the General Plan andZoning Ordinance
Date:Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4:24:54 PM
Attachments:image002.pngimage003.png
image004.gif
Carlsbad New and Expanded Airports Amendments - ALUC Consistency Determination Letter.pdf
Please find attached the determination of consistency for the City of Carlsbad’s proposed
amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, submitted for Airport Land UseCommission (ALUC) review. This determination will be reported to the ALUC at the public
meeting scheduled for July 11, 2024, after which it will become final, barring any objections
at the meeting from the ALUC. Please consult the letter for further details. Should you haveany questions regarding the determination, please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or
egowens@san.org.
Ralph Redman
Manager | Development Division/Planning & Env. Affairs Dept.
Office 619.400.2464
rredman@san.org
SAN.ORG
A blue sign with white text
Description automatically generated
From: Mike Strong <Mike.Strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:04 AM
To: ALUCapp <ALUCapp@san.org>
Subject: ALUC consistency determination application
Good morning:
The City of Carlsbad initiated a project to proposes amendments to the city’s General Plan,
Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify code requirements and permit
review procedures for new or expanded airport uses, or where there is an acquisition of
property beyond the current boundaries of the airport.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 285 of 383
[ii
[ii
The City of Carlsbad is required by state law to submit the draft code amendments to the ALUC
for the San Diego County for an ALUCP consistency determination prior to final approval.
Attached is the City of Carlsbad consistency determination request for draft code amendments
that the city is sponsoring.
The draft General Plan Amendment is as follows: The proposed amendment would amend the
text and define “airport” and “airport expansion” and allow an airport with approval of a
conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all other properties within the city. The
draft Zoning Code Amendment is as follows: The proposed amendment would amend Zoning
Ordinance text and define “airport” and “airport expansion” and allow an airport with approval
of a conditional use permit by the City Council only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar
Airport designated on the city’s Zoning Map and prohibit an airport in all other zones and on all
other properties within the city.
Please mail or email a letter to the City (my attention) confirming that you have received the
ALUC consistency determination application and will indicate if the application is complete or
missing required or additional submittal materials. Otherwise, the date of this email will be
construed as the start date for any agency review period.
Mike Strong
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2721 direct | mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 286 of 383
June 18, 2024
Mr. Mike Strong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination – Amendments to General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses Related to
McClellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Strong:
As the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) acknowledges receipt of an application for a
determination of consistency for the project described above. The area covered by this
project lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport -
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined
that it meets our requirements for completeness. In accordance with SDCRAA Policy 8.30
and applicable provisions of the State Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21670-21679.5),
ALUC staff will report to the ALUC that the proposed project is consistent with the
McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP based upon the facts and findings summarized below:
(1) The project involves amendments to the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to specify and clarify policy objectives, code requirements, and permit review
procedures for new and expanded airport land uses on and around the property of
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
a) General plan amendments propose the following:
i. Specify as a policy statement City opposition to any changes to the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan
or approach speed for the airfield or that would accommodate larger
aircraft than are currently in use at the airport such that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design classification would require
revision to anything other than a B-II Enhanced Alternative; and
ii. Specify definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion” congruent
respectively with the State Aeronautics Act definition of “airport” (Cal. Pub.
Util. Code §21013) and the standards of the Aeronautics Act which, if
exceeded, would require an amended Airport Permit from Caltrans Division
of Aeronautics (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21661.6); and
iii. Require new or expanded “airport” uses to obtain a new or amended
conditional use permit; and
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 287 of 383
iv. Permit “airport” uses only within the current boundary of McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
b) Zoning ordinance amendments propose the following:
i. Permit “airport” uses only by issuance of a new or amended conditional use
permit; and
ii. Amend the zoning on properties adjacent to McClellan-Palomar Airport to
remove “airport” as permissible uses, such that only the property within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted in the city
zoning map would remain as permissible for “airport” uses.
(2) The ALUC does not exercise jurisdiction over operations of any airport, and its statutory
role and duty is to advise local agencies on the consistency of proposed projects within
the AIA of an adopted ALUCP (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21674).
(3) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP noise contours.
(4) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP airspace protection
surfaces.
(5) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP safety zones.
(6) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within the ALUCP overflight notification
area.
(7) Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP.
(8) A determination of consistency is not a “project” as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21065, and is not a
“development” as defined by the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30106.
The information above will be reported to the ALUC to confirm this letter at its public
meeting on July 11, 2024. The determination of consistency will be final as of that meeting,
unless the ALUC finds cause to delay such action, in which case a determination will be
rendered within 60 days of the date of this letter, to be confirmed by additional
correspondence.
Any determination of consistency rendered by the ALUC is limited to the project plans and
descriptions submitted with the application and is not transferable to any revision of this or
any similar, future project involving a change in land use, in building or crane height, or in
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 288 of 383
building area in excess of 10 percent (provided area increase does exceed ALUCP standards)
of any prior ALUC determination. Any change or exceedance in these characteristics
requires a new consistency determination prior to decision-making consideration by the
local agency.
Please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or egowens@san.org if you have any questions
regarding this letter.
Yours truly,
Ralph Redman
Manager, Airport Planning
cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRAA General Counsel
Sjohnna Knack, SDCRAA Planning, Noise, & Environment
Jamie Abbott, County of San Diego Airports
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 289 of 383
From:Sheila Cobian
To:Scott Chadwick; Geoff Patnoe; Jason Haber; Mike Strong
Cc:Sherry Freisinger; Faviola Medina
Subject:FW: Palomar: Carlsbad Planning & Zoning; Bender July 9, 2024 Comments on SD County July 8, 2024 Letter
Date:Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:27:24 PM
Attachments:District Court Joint Case Management RB July 9 Lttr to Carlsbad re County Jly 8 Palomar Zoning Lttr.docx
Forwarding per Mr. Bender’s request.
From: RAYMOND BENDER <benderbocan@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 11:54 AM
To: Sheila Cobian <sheila.cobian@carlsbadca.gov>; Faviola Medina
<faviola.medina@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Raymond Bender <benderbocan@aol.com>
Subject: Palomar: Carlsbad Planning & Zoning; Bender July 9, 2024 Comments on SD County July 8,
2024 Letter
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Ms. Freisinger and Ms. Faviola. Please confirm your receipt of this email
and attachment and confirm you are forwarding to council members, Mr.
Chadwick, Mr. Haber, and Mike Strong. If you have questions, you can
reach me at benderbocan@gmail.com and cell: 760 500-1503
Thank you. RB
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 290 of 383
District Court Joint Case Management RB July 9 Lttr to Carlsbad re County Jly 8 Palomar Zoning Lttr July 9, 2024 Sherry Freisinger, City Clerk clerk@carlsbadca.gov 442-339-2808
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Faviola Medina, City Clerk Services Director faviola.medina@carlsbadca.gov 442-339-2808
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad City Council Members Carlsbad City Manager Scott Chadwick Carlsbad Intergovernmental Affairs Director, Jason Haber
Mike Strong, Assistant Community Development Director [ADDRESSE OF COUNTY JULY 8, 2024 LETTER] City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Response to County July 9, 2024 Letter re Proposed Changes to the General Pan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Plan Related to McClellan-Palomar Airport Development
Carlsbad City Clerk & Mr. Strong: I saw the County July 8, 2024 letter related to Carlsbad Palomar planning and zoning matters this morning July 9, 2024. I write to correct county errors. Since 2013, I have written more than 250 articles in the daily electronic newspaper Carlsbadpatch.com correcting such errors. I ask that
you distribute a copy of this letter to your council members, city attorney, and planning staff. Preliminary Comments: FAA & County Credibility and Repeatedly Ignoring Safety Issues
FAA and county Palomar claims rise or fall with their credibility. Both have sacrificed Palomar
safety for their desire to convert Palomar from an FAA-rated B-II airport to a D-III airport. In 2021, the San Diego Superior Court agreed that county needs Carlsbad permission to convert the airport. Lengthening the Palomar runway with upgraded pavement standards and reorienting
the direction and creating increased separation between the taxiways and runway are the first
stage of the FAA/County conversion plan. The county orally raised federal preemption issues in its argument to the court. The court ignored them. County never appealed that issue. Neither FAA nor county Palomar claims are reliable. Just consider the below facts.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 291 of 383
While investigating the Boeing 737 crashes killing hundreds, Congress found the FAA promotes development over safety - just the opposite of what Congress told the FAA to do in the aviation
acts. Congress also found the FAA repeatedly refused to provide the information Congress
needed to act. Just read the December 18, 2020 Senator Wicker Press Release on pg. 8 below. Both the FAA and county have compromised the safety of Palomar users and the community around Palomar since 1966. The proof is rather dramatic.
• The 1959 FAA FAAP 0801 grant to build Palomar expressly told county not to build any non-airport improvements or improvements harming aviation safety.
• Yet county in the 60s and 70s built 3 landfills about 1000 feet from the Palomar runway
without FAA approval in the canyons along the runway. In response to several FOIA requests made by the undersigned both the FAA and county have been unable to produce any records showing that the FAA either consented or objected to the Palomar landfills.
• The landfills operated until the 70s. They were closed after about 1,000,000 rotting cubic
yards of garbage were dumped.
• Since then, the rotting garbage has caused Palomar runway settlement, methane gas intrusion into Palomar buildings, air and water pollution, and creation of a safety hazard in the so-called Palomar Runway Safety Area (RSA) at the runway east end.
• County did not install its methane gas collection system - an extensive spaghetti network of piping below the Palomar runway east end - until the 90s. For nearly 20 years, county allowed the explosive and ozone destroying methane gas to harm Palomar workers and community residents and contribute to global warming.
• Every year, the Regional Water Quality Control Board monitoring report required by
RWQCB Order 96-13 shows multiple landfill hazardous contaminants greatly exceed regulatory requirements.
• The runway east end landfill along El Camino Real has had several underground fires, one
lasting nearly a year. We don’t know how they affected the methane gas collection system.
The simple question in this case is: Does Carlsbad by its planning and zoning powers have the right to protect its residents against Palomar aviation risks created by county failing to abide by FAA grant conditions and failing to abide by the Carlsbad Use Permit (CUP) 172 process?
Response to County 2021 Master Plan Comment The 2018 and 2021 County Master Plans did list multiple Palomar expansion options. The critical fact county omits is this: Though the Board of Supervisors in 2018 chose an 800-foot
runway extension and converting Palomar to a D-III airport, the Board reversed that decision in
2021 after the SD Superior Court ruling. County then chose a 200-foot extension and keeping
Palomar a B-II airport. The FAA has always said that local entities, not the FAA, decide how big airports become.
Why? Because the constitution allocates local zoning powers to states, not the federal
government. For precisely that reason, the FAA grows airports by carrots, not sticks. Federal grants, not federal runway expansion mandates.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 292 of 383
As to county’s “critical design aircraft” data, county fudges. One FAA grant condition required the county to annually maintain an accurate Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for Palomar. If the
undersigned’s memory is correct, from about 2000 to about 2018, county listed the Palomar
Critical Design Aircraft as the Falcon 2000, a B-II aircraft. Ask county for its critical design aircraft correspondence with the FAA during the noted period. The county’s claim that both it and the FAA simply want to protect Palomar safety after a 2006
crash killed 4 people is, sadly, laughable. Here is why.
• The FAA in 2000 announced a nationwide program to install EMAS safety systems (crushable concrete blocks at runway ends like the one that saved Vice President
Pence).
• From 2006 to 2024, the FAA and county could have installed the EMAS systems. The FAA in about 2010 granted county monies to dig up and rehabilitate the Palomar runway - the perfect time to install the EMAS systems.
• The standard FAA requirement for Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) at runway ends handling FAA-rated C and D aircraft is 1000 feet. The Palomar RSAs (unpaved areas at each end of the Palomar current 4,897 foot runway) are 350 feet. County can easily substitute the 350-foot long EMAS crushable block systems for the existing RSAs. These 350-foot EMAS systems have the same stopping power as a 1000 foot
RSA.
• In about 2017, county asked the FAA for EMAS monies. The FAA replied that EMAS systems could not be considered until county concluded its Palomar Master Plan study then under way. The proof. Ask the FAA to produce the county-FAA
2017 era correspondence. If memory serves, the FAA staffer replying was Margie
Drilling.
• Moreover, county does not even have to install 2 expensive EMAS systems (one at each runway end. County already has 700+ extra existing feet to lengthen the east end 350 foot RSA to 1000 feet. How do we know this? Because county admits that it
already has 800 feet to lengthen the runway.
• In short, county and the FAA killed the 4 people who died in the 2006 crash because they willfully refused to install any EMAS system - or even lengthen one of the RSAs to 1000 feet- because they wanted to “save” the 800 feet for a Palomar runway
extension.
Carlsbad also needs to ask county about the October 15, 2013 SCS Engineers report entitled: “Evaluation of Possible Environmental Impacts of a Potential Aircraft Crash into the Landfill Cover at Palomar Airport Landfill, Carlsbad, California -- SCS File Number 01213281.”
County buried this report after receiving it.
Before county undertakes any Palomar work, it needs to order an objective report showing the environmental impacts of an aircraft - especially a D-III aircraft carrying 4000 gallons of explosive aviation fuel instead of the much less fuel in a B-II aircraft - crashing into the oddly
named Palomar runway east end “Runway Safety Area” harboring thousands of feet of landfill
methane gas collection piping. Response to County Concerns with City’s Proposed Actions
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 293 of 383
County says: “The [Carlsbad] restrictions also attempt to limit Airport Uses to the existing
Airport footprint as shown on the current City zoning maps, which do not include any RPZ areas.
These restrictions, if fully implemented could prohibit, or delay the county from implementing
safety improvements for aircraft currently using the Airport.” County again omits critical information. First, recall the history.
County came to Carlsbad in the late 70s, hat in hand, begging Carlsbad to annex Palomar within city boundaries because county wanted city services, especially fire department services, for the airport. To accomplish that, county entered into a bargain with Carlsbad that county now regrets.
County agreed to share the proprietary control over Palomar expansion/conversion with Carlsbad
in CUP 172. County initially submitted a CUP 172 Exhibit 1 allowing county to unilaterally lengthen the runway. Look at your file. But the Carlsbad council revised Exhibit 1 to delete the reference to runway lengthening, thereby reserving that decision jointly to county and Carlsbad. Jointly, county and Carlsbad took their plan to the state Local Area Formation Commission
(LAFCO). LAFCO recognized substantial rights in Carlsbad.
Yes, it is true that CUP 172 drawings, and hence the Carlsbad zoning maps, show Palomar development as restricted to the approximately 225 acres west of El Camino Real. But that was the deal county made. County and Carlsbad negotiated the LAFCO process and negotiated CUP
172. So county misspeaks when it says “Carlsbad” is limiting development. The parties
mutually agreed to limit development. In passing, it should be noted that whenever county applies for FAA grants, county fills out a detailed FAA grant application. Among other info the FAA seeks, is a statement of what entities
have planning control over Palomar and whether any local entities have authority. The
undersigned has reviewed many county grant applications to the FAA. Those applications fail to accurately disclose the LAFCO and CUP 172 issues. The Carlsbad Council should insist the county file accurate FAA grant applications and also notify the FAA of this issue.
What is the second county misstatement when it complains of Carlsbad restrictions? The false
claim that the restrictions prevent county from increasing Palomar airport safety. Also, a laughable claim. The FAA and county tomorrow within the Palomar 225 CUP 172 acres could install two 350-long (or even longer) EMAS systems at runway ends that meet FAA AC 150/5300-13 design requirements. To the extent Palomar handles, FAA-rated C and D aircraft
(despite the FAA-B-II rating), those systems would meet FAA safety standards. Without any
runway lengthening. The FAA has been doing this across the United States for 24 years and is what the county asked for in about 2017/2018 but the FAA denied. Response to County Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4fa) Comments
C4fa already has its own legal counsel, so my “legal comments” will be minimal.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 294 of 383
1. County says federal law preempts Carlsbad zoning. To make its argument, county misstates the facts and incompletely states the law. In 2021, the Board of supervisors voted to
retain Palomar as a B-II airport. Case closed. County did not adopt any D-III standards. County
airport staff may wish to end run the Board and FAA staff is only too happy to promote the D-III plan. But staff does not speak for the Board. Legally, there are at least 5 issues. First, procedurally, county waived its right to raise the
preemption issue by failing to appeal the SD court 2018 Palomar Master Plan lawsuit. The
undersigned listened to the county argument before Judge Pollock (possibly on county’s reconsideration motion). County argued preemption. Judge Pollock did not accept it. Secondly, the law distinguishes between local entities acting as regulators when imposing police
power and acting as “proprietors” as an entity having contractual or other powers over an
airport. In short, as the FAA has said many times, airport proprietors, not the FAA, decides how much airports grow. Understanding the proper law to apply requires a detailed analysis of both issues.
How much does the FAA defer to local zoning power? Apparently hugely. Recall that FAA
Grant FAAP 0801 barred county from using airport property for non-airport uses and/or uses harmful to aviation. Yet the FAA for decades - despite the grant limitation and despite the daily provable harm to aviation - allowed the landfill operation to continue. Only two conclusions are possible. First, the FAA is grossly incompetent. Second, the FAA was unwilling to contest local
zoning authority to place landfills on the airport.
Thirdly, the county incorrectly argues Carlsbad restrictions would harm aircraft safety. To the contrary, Carlsbad supports county installing an EMAS safety system at each runway end. Those EMAS systems accommodate FAA-rated C and D aircraft and meet FAA safety standards.
Carlsbad zoning restrictions do not prevent the county or FAA from acquiring air easements if
needed for RPZ zones. A legal issues arises only if county’s facts are correct. They are not. Fourthly, county tries to evade the CUP 172 restrictions that it voluntarily accepted and the powers LAFCO recognized in Carlsbad. The undersigned understands that when courts look at
the so-called “proprietor” exception to the preemption argument, the courts recognize increased
powers when states, not just local entities, are involved. The LAFCO approval was a state recognized approval. Lastly, the FAA and county have routinely ignored the SDCRAA ALUC since it adopted its 2010
Palomar Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP). The LUCP does two things. It defines the crash
area for properties around Palomar thereby resulting in severe ALUC property restrictions. Recall this happened when the Durkins sued Carlsbad and county (separately) due to the use limitations that the ALUC put on the Durkin property. The LUCP also defines noise restrictions.
Why is the ALUC LUCP relevant to the analysis? The FAA/County basic argument is simple.
Palomar may be an FAA-rated B-II airport but FAA-rated C and D aircraft use it. And we the FAA are not going to tell pilots not to use Palomar even though both Carlsbad and county have
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 295 of 383
voted to keep Palomar as a B-II airport though encouraging EMAS systems on the existing airport to protect C and D aircraft.
Now look at the problem the FAA and county create that EMAS systems will not solve. D-III aircraft carry much more explosive aviation fuel than smaller aircraft, fly faster, are heavier, and create a much larger crash area danger. Yet neither the FAA nor county have contacted the ALUC to say: the 2010 LUCP is outdated. The crash areas needed to be changed. Palomar now
handles -- out of its 160,000 annual flights - 700 D-III aircraft.
In short, you have to doubt FAA and county safety claims when they ignore installing EMAS systems for 24 years and don’t even raise the D-III crash issue with the ALUC.
2. RPZ Acquisition.
As noted above, the county and FAA can acquire by contract RPZ easements anytime they want whatever the Carlsbad planning and zoning conditions may be.
3. County CUP 172 Applications are Required for Runway Relocations or Extensions.
County argues a runway extension is not an airport expansion so county needs no CUP 172 Carlsbad application for the extension. County is wrong.
First, as county acknowledges, County needs a Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics
operating permit to expand Palomar and PUC § 21664.5 includes runway extensions as an expansion. Second, the 2024 FAA ALP designates Palomar as an ultimate D-III airport - despite
Carlsbad and county approving only a B-II airport. So the FAA designation is in error. The FAA
cannot designate a D-III airport unless and until Carlsbad and county say in an official county action after a hearing before the public that is the airport they want. Otherwise, the FAA under the constitution violates the State/local zoning power.
Finally, a D-III airport has different paving, runway-taxiway distance separation, turning
radii, and navigational lighting requirements than a B-II airport. The FAA and county may no more build a “sham” B-II longer runway suitable for future D-III use than they may avoid preparing an EIR by dividing a project into seemingly environmental neutral segments.
Response to FAA Grant Assurance Language Ironically, the county serial grant violator that installed 3 landfills in violation of FAA FAAP grant 0801& many successor FAA grants, says it needs to comply with FAA Grant Assurances.
The undersigned understands that County Airports between 2000 and 2020 gave County Landfill
more than $1,500,000 in Palomar funds to clean up part of the Palomar landfill mess that County Landfill created in violation of the grants. We have seen no FAA FOIA responses that county
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 296 of 383
received FAA permission to make this transfer and this transfer appears to violate FAA grant conditions.
Similarly, the undersigned understands that county for years has allowed Carlsbad Car Country dealers to store autos on Palomar passenger lots paid for with FAA grant funds, another grant violation unless county first obtained FAA approval.
Moreover, even if the county had been a proper Palomar mistress and complied with FAA grants,
it cannot rely on the grant language it cites: actions necessary to comply with county obligations. The grant obligation county has is to operate Palomar in accord with FAA requirements for the B-II airport that county built and the FAA has accepted for many years. If the FAA has FAA C and D aircraft issues, those issues result from the FAA/county failing to install the EMAS
systems Carlsbad supports and the FAA failure to control pilots piloting C and D aircraft wishing
to use a B-II rated airport. Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments, which I request you include in the Carlsbad Planning and Zoning administrative record because it was not possible to present them
before July 9, 2024.
/s/ Raymond Bender JD & MBA from UCLA
Retired from Los Angeles City Attorney Office
See the Senator Wicker Investigation Report Press Release on Page
8 below explaining why the FAA cannot be trusted including its history of punishing whistleblowers who bring safety concerns to the
FAA’s attention and who obstructed an Office of the Inspector
General review of the Boing 737 Max Crashes
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 297 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 298 of 383
PRESS RELEASES
(HTTPS://WWW.COMMERCE.SENATE.GOV/PRESSRELEASES)
Wicker Releases Committee's FAA Investigation Report
(https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/:1.2/wicker-
releases-committee-s-faa-investigation-report)
December18,2020
U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss .. chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today
released the Committee's investigation report on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This investigation began in
April of 2019, weeks after the second of two tragic crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, when Committee staff began
receiving information from whistleblowers disclosing numerous concerns related to aviation safety.
"Twenty months ago, the Commerce Committee launched an investigation into FAA safety oversight. We have received
disclosures from more than 50 whistleblowers. conducted numerous FAA staff interviews, and reviewed over 15,000
pages of relevant documents." said Wicker. "Our findings are troubLing. The report details a number of significant examples
of lapses in aviation safety oversight and failed leadership in the FAA. It is clear that the agency requires consistent
oversight to ensure their work to protect the flying pubLic is executed fully and correctly."
Some of the report's more significant findings include:
• FAA senior managers have not been held accountable for failure to develop and deliver adequate training in flight
standards, despite repeated findings of deficiencies over several decades.
• The FAA continues to retaliate against whistleblowers instead of welcoming their disclosures in the interest of safety.
• The Department of Transportation Office of General Counsel (DOT OGC) failed to produce relevant documents
requested by Chairman Wicker as required by Article I, Section I of the Constitution.
• The FAA repeatedly permitted Southwest AirLines to continue operating dozens of aircraft in an unknown
airworthiness condition for several years. These flights put millions of passengers at risk.
• During 737 MAX recertification testing, Boeing inappropriately influenced FAA human factor simulator testing of pilot
reaction times involving a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) failure.
• FAA senior leaders may have obstructed a DOT OIG review of the 737 MAX crashes.
The Commerce Committee released a fact sheet (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2019/11/fact-sheet-southwest-
airlines-skyLine-aircraft-concerns) highlighting information on improper issuance of airworthiness certificates for 88
Southwest AirLines airplanes in November. 2019. Chairman Wicker also sent a lellfil
lhltps· //wwwcommerce senate goy/servjces/files/5EB3.B.EC.9.:.BCQb1CCB-A1CD-FE94.oz,CsZ!!Z71 to FAA Administrator
Stephen Dickson expressing concern about these aircraft. In January of 2020, another fact sheet
(https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/1/whistleblower-allegations-of-misconduct-at-the-faa-flight-standards-
district-office-in-honolulu-hawai-D was released on alleged misconduct by FAA managers at the Flight Standards District
Office in Honolulu. Hawaii. An update to this fact sheet (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/6/update-to-
whistleblower-allegations-of-misconduct-at-the-faa-f\ight-standards-district-office-in-honolulu-hawai-D was posted on
June 17, 2020. The Committee is still reviewing the ongoing production of requested documents from the FAA and
additional information received from whistleblowers.
Click here (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/8F636324-2324-43B2-A178-F828B6E490E8) to read the
Committee's report. which includes a one-page executive summary and a six-page overview.
https:Jfwww.commerce.senate.gov/2020/12/wicker-releases-committee-s-faa-investigation-report Page 1 of 2
July 9, 2024
Kim Becker, President and CEO San Diego County Regional Airport Authority PO Box 82776 San Diego, CA
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN GOVERNING EXPANSION OF AIRPORT USES RELATED TO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
Dear Ms. Becker,
The County of San Diego (County) is responding to the proposed consistency determination that was made by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff on June 18, 2024, regarding proposed amendments to the City of Carlsbad (City) General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Plan (GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021) (Attachment A). The County is the owner and operator of McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport) and is concerned with the City’s proposed amendments aimed to prevent the County from implementing safety improvements included in the Airport Master Plan (Master Plan) approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2021,
(Attachment B) (6). Rather than amend its land use regulations to account for the planned safety improvements, the City’s proposal seeks to prohibit what it improperly identifies as an airport “expansion” and potentially facilitate incompatible land uses in a future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), placing aircraft operations, people, and property in the vicinity of the Airport at increased risk. The City’s proposal is inherently inconsistent with state-
mandated airport land use planning that the ALUC is charged with overseeing.
The primary objective of the Master Plan is to improve safe operations for aircraft already using the Airport, largely motivated by a desire to address an accident that occurred at the Airport on January 25, 2006, in which four people were killed, and to help prevent
future incidents. At the time the Master Plan was approved, the Gulfstream G650, a D-III aircraft, was identified as the design-critical aircraft for the Airport. To safely accommodate this aircraft, the Master Plan contemplates a northward shift of the runway to achieve FAA-required wingtip separation from Taxiway A and a small runway extension
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 212, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2422
(619) 531-6256
AMY HARBERT INTERIM DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 299 of 383
with Energy Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) at either end of the relocated runway to, among other things, meet FAA runway safety area requirements. The relocation and extension of the runway requires the RPZ at either end of the runway be moved to the north. While the Airport is safe for aircraft to use today, it is critical for the County to
implement these safety enhancements based on the D-III, design-critical, aircraft to help prevent future incidents. The County submitted the Master Plan to the ALUC and received feedback on March 19, 2018. The ALUC intended to utilize this document to update the 2008 McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter 2008 ALUCP), emphasizing the need for accurate RPZ depictions as part of the update process. The ALUC approved the Master Plan during the November 1, 2018 ALUC meeting, and directed ALUC staff to update the 2008 ALUCP to align with the Master Plan alternative ultimately chosen and approved by the County Board. The Master Plan that included the D-III modified design (Alternative 5)
was approved by the County Board on December 8, 2021 (6). The following references are provided for your consideration: 1. Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21674.5 provides that, “An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends an airport land use compatibility
plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section
21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by
the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation.” 2. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that, “ALUCs protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” (Handbook, Sec. 1.1, P. 1-1). 3. PUC section 21675(a) provides that, “Each commission shall formulate an airport
land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public
airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the
commission and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the
vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission’s airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or
an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the
Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport
during at least the next 20 years.” There is no current ALUCP for the Airport. Section 3.2 of the 2008 ALUCP emphasizes
the importance of airport configurations in establishing compatibility maps, which include RPZs and noise contours. The planned facilities in the 2008 ALUCP exclude the runway relocation or shifting included in the current Master Plan. Specifically, an inconsistency exists between the 2008 ALUCP and the Master Plan regarding design standards. While the 2008 ALUCP adheres to C-II design standards, the Master Plan adopts D-III
standards as previously noted as the ultimate design. Additionally, the Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 300 of 383
specifies RPZ dimensions as 1700’ x 500’ x 700’ for Runway 6-24, whereas the current RPZ dimensions in the 2008 ALUCP are mapped further south as 1000’ x 500’ x 700’ and 2500’ x 1000’ x 1750’. It is imperative an ALUCP be adopted for the Airport in accordance with the ALUC’s November 1, 2018, direction to ensure potential changes to compatibility
maps are adequately addressed and to prevent incompatible land uses within the RPZ. State law makes it clear that the ALUC is required to adopt an ALUCP for the Airport based on the adopted Master Plan and that the ALUCP must provide for the “orderly growth” of the Airport. The express purpose of the City’s proposed changes is to prohibit
what it incorrectly identifies as the expansion of the Airport. If the City’s proposal is found to be consistent with the ALUCP for the Airport, it can only be because the ALUC has not taken action to adopt an ALUCP based on the current Master Plan. The Master Plan was approved nearly three years ago and no legal challenge was brought to the approval. The Master Plan and associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) are
legally beyond challenge and the ALUC has been aware of the proposed change to the ALUCP for over six years. Airport planning requires that ALUCPs be based on current airport master plans or airport layout plans. Cities and counties are in turn required to ensure their general plans and
zoning ordinances comply with the adopted ALUCPs. The absence of a current ALUCP is not an insignificant matter. The situation has allowed the City to attempt to implement land use regulations that are intended to prevent safety improvements needed to accommodate the design-critical aircraft from being implemented. The City seeks to take advantage of the ALUC’s failure to adopt a current ALUCP to force the County Master
Plan and resultant ALUCP to conform to the City’s vision of the Airport by potentially establishing incompatible uses. If allowed to proceed, under an improper consistency determination by the ALUC, the City would be effectively taking control of State mandated airport land use planning, which is not under the City’s legal purview. This vision discredits the importance of safety improvements and the risk of liability associated with the failure
to achieve them, something that appropriately would be placed on the City if the ALUC would properly find the City’s proposal inconsistent with the ALUCP. (See, PUC 21678 providing immunity for airport sponsors where a local agency overrules an inconsistency determination by an airport authority.)
County Airports urges the ALUC to refrain from issuing a consistency determination that supports amendments to the City’s general plan and zoning ordinance that contradict the airport planning process mandated by State law, and to promptly update the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP. In the meantime, the ALUC should declare a moratorium or take action on the premise that there is no current ALUCP. Otherwise, the ALUC will be facilitating
action to circumvent state-mandated airport planning, potentially placing current aircraft operations, people, and property at increased risk. The County appreciates your attention to these critical matters and looks forward to a timely and appropriate resolution. Our staff are available to connect on any needed
discussions or further inquiries. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 301 of 383
Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov. Sincerely,
Amy Harbert Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chairwoman Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe Supervisor Jim Desmond Mayor Keith Blackburn, City of Carlsbad Guillermo Cabrera, Board Chair, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Raphael Perez, Board Member, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Ebony Shelton, Chief Administrative Officer William P. Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works Matthew Parr, Interim Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, City of Carlsbad Ralph Redman, Manager Development Division, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Attachments: Attachment A: June 18, 2024 San Diego County Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination – Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses related to McClellan-Paloma Airport, City of Carlsbad
Attachment B: December 8, 2021 County of San Diego Minute Order approving McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 302 of 383
1 ~
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 303 of 383
ATTACHMENT A
June 18, 2024 San Diego County Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission
Consistency Determination
Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport
Uses related to McClellan-Paloma Airport, City of Carlsbad
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 304 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNIY
REGIONAL
Al RPO RT
AUTHORITY
June 18, 2024
Mr. Mike Strong
City of Carlsbad
163S Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Airport land Use Commission Consistency Determination -Amendments to General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses Related to
McClellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Strong:
As the Airport land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) acknowledges receipt of an application for a
determination of consistency for the project described above. The area covered by this
project lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined
that it meets our requirements for completeness. In accordance with SDCRAA Policy 8.30
and applicable provisions of the State Aeronautics Act (Cat. Pub. Util. Code ~21670-21679.S),
ALUC staff will report to the Al UC that the proposed project is consistent with the
McClellan-Palomar Airport AlUCP based upon the facts and findings summarized below:
(1) The project Involves amendments to the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to specify and clarify policy objectives, code requirements, and permit review
procedures for new and expanded airport land uses on and around the property of
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
a) General plan amendments propose the following:
i. Specify as a policy statement City opposition to any changes to the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan
or approach speed for the airfield or that would accommodate larger
aircraft than are currently in use at the airport such that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design classification would require
revision to anything other than a B•U Enhanced Alternative; and
ii. Specify definitions for "airport" and "airport expansion" congruent
respectively with the State Aeronautics Act definition of "airport" (Cal. Pub.
Util. Code §21013) and the standards of the Aeronautics Act which, if
exceeded, would require an amended Airport Permit from Caltrans Division
of Aeronautics (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21661.6); and
iii. Require new or expanded "airport" uses to obtain a new or amended
conditional use permit; and
PO 60)( 82776
Sano,090 CA92'38·2776
www.$an.org/alu(:
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 305 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
REGIONAL
AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
iv. Permit "airport" uses only within the current boundary of McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
b) Zoning ordinance amendments propose the following:
i. Permit "airport" uses only by issuance of a new or amended conditional use
permit; and
ii. Amend the zoning on properties adjacent to McClellan-Palomar Airport to
remove "airport" as permissible uses, such that only the property within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted in the city
zoning map would remain as permissible for "airport" uses.
(2) The AlVC does not exercise jurisdiction over operations of any airport, and its statutory
role and duty is to advise local agencies on the consistency of proposed projects within
the AIA of an adopted AlUCP (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21674).
(3) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP noise contours.
(41 The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP airspace protection
surfaces.
(5) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP safety tones.
(61 The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
esublish any use which would be incompatible within the ALUCP overflight notification
area.
171 Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP.
(8) A determination of wnsistency is not a "project" as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21065, and is not a
"development" as defined by the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30106.
The information above will be reported to the ALUC to confirm this letter at its public
meeting on July 11, 2024. The determination of consistency will be final as of that meeting,
unless the ALUC finds cause to delay such action. in which case a determination will be
rendered within 60 days of the date of this letter, to be confirmed by additional
correspondence.
Any determination of consistency rendered by the ALUC is limited to the project plans and
descriptions submitted with the application and is not transferable to any revision of this or
any similar, future project involving a change in land use, in building or crane height, or ill
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 306 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
RFGIONAL
AIRPORT
AU 1 HOl<I IY
building area in excess of 10 percent (provided area increase does exceed ALUCP standards)
of any prior ALUC determination. Any change or exceedance in these characteristics
,equires a new consistency determination prior to decision-making consideration by the
local agency.
Please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or egowens@san.org if you have any questions
regarding this letter.
Yours truly,
Ralph Redman
Manager, Airport Planning
cc: Amy Gonzalez. SDCRAA General Counsel
Sjohnna Knack, SOCRAA Planning, Noise, & Environment
Jamie Abbott, County of San Diego Airports
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 307 of 383
ATTACHMENT B
December 8, 2021 County of San Diego Minute Order approving McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 308 of 383
COUNTY Of SAN DiEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -LAND USE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2021
MINUTE ORDER NO. 6
SUBJECT: ADOPT MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE,
CERTIFY MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY (DISTRICT: 5)
OVERVIEW
McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar) is located in the City of Carlsbad and is one of eight airports
owned and operated by the County of San Diego (County), at no cost to the General Fund. Palomar was
constrneted on County-owned property, and when it opened in 1959, the surrounding area consisted
mainly of agriculturnl uses. Over the last 60 years, light industrial, commercial, and recreational uses
have developed around the airport. The City of Carlsbad annexed the ailport in 1978, citing economic
benefits including significant tax revenues for the City and increased services for the County. Today, the
airport serves the community and region as a vital air transportation hub, an emergency services facility,
an<l an economic engine that supports 2,590 local jobs and generates $72 million in tax revenues and
$461 million in economic activity annually.
Palomar is a federally funded public-use airport and part of the national air transportation system. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates this system and hy federal law, airport owners and
operators, such as the County, cannot restrict the size or type of aircraft landing or taking off from an
airpo11. The FAA provides airports with guidance to safely accommodate the types of aircraft that use an
airport, which is the foundation for the safety enhancements identified in the Palomar Master Plan
Update (MPU). The FAA generally provides up 10 90% grant funding for safety improvements;
however, an approved and current Airport Layout Plan, which is included as part of the Master Plan, is
required to be eligible for funding.
On December 16, 2015 (3), the County Board of Supervisors (Board) directed staff lo update lhe Master
Plan for Palomar. The Master Plan is a 20-year planning road map for airport capital improvements that
emphasizes safety. The most recent Master Plan for Palomar, completed in 1997, had reached the end of
its 20-ycar planning period. On September 25, 2013 (2), the Board considered the findings ofa 2013
Feasibility Study, which studied a longer runway. The Board directed stafTto focus the MPU on safety
improvements for the aircraft currently using the airport while remaining within the existing airport
property boundaries.
On Octoher I 0, 2018 ( l) the Board approved the MPU and certified the Program Environmental Impact
Report (PEIR). On November 6, 2018, a pelition for Writ of Mandate and complaint was filed by
Citizens for a Friendly Airport, challenging the Board's decision. On January 26, 2021, lhe Superior
Court (Court) filed a Minute Order upholding the Final PEIR analysis and dismissing the claims, except
on two items. While the Court determined the PEIR's noise analysis was generally adequate, the Court
found lhe Final PEIR should have included supplemental noise analysis for areas farther from Palomar.
In addition, the Court ruled that an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) with the City of
Carlsbad must be sought if the design status of the airport is changed to accommodate the design critical
aircraft.
DECEMBER 08, 2021
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 309 of 383
On March 4, 2021, the Court ordered the County to set aside all approvals associated with the October
10, 2018, decision, which included the approval of the MPU, certification for the Final PEIR, and
related actions, within 60 days. On May 5, 2021 (13), the Board rescinded the MPU and de-certified the
PEIR and related environmental findings pursuant to the Court's order.
The County has now completed the additional noise analysis. as directed by the Court, and updated the
PEIR and MPU to address the potential need for an amendment to the CUP. Staff has also developed
options for the Board's consideration that would tlemonstr.ite the County's leadership in sustainability.
This is a request for the Board to: (l) select the airport design standard for Palomar, including a potential
runway extension, which will increase federal grant funding eligibility, and allow the County to pursue
safety enhancement projects to protect airer.in currently using Palomar. The Board will select either:
(2A) adopt the MPU and take the actions in Item 3 below relating to the Final PEIR, or (2B) not adopt
the MPU.
If Recommendation 2A is selected 10 adopt the MPU, then, together with its action to adopt the MPU,
the Bo.ird must (3) certify the associated Final PEIR and supporting documents, which, with the added
noise analysis, is consistent with the direction of the Superior Court.
(4) If the MPU and associated Final PEIR are adopted and certified, provide direction to staff on
sustainahility options, with staffs recommendation being to pursue an airpon system-wide sustainability
plan that will position the County to become a leader in aviation-hased sustainahility across the region.
If Recommendation 2B is selected to not adopt the MPU, then the Board will direct staff to evaluate
other airport classifications; return 10 the Board for further direction upon evaluation and establish
appropriations based on prior year Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) Balance of$ I, I 00,000.
( 5) If the MPU is not adopted, the Board can also direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for Palomar
Airport and provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
See the Background Section of the Board Lcucr under Airport Design Standards and Allachment H for
additional details on the Airport Master Plan Update options.
I. Select the airport design standard, including a potential runway extension:
Airport Design I AND I Runway Extension
(Ptck One) (Ptck One)
Option A. B-11 Enhanced Facility: Current design I .None
enhanced with installation of an Engineered Material
2.200 feet Arresting System (EMAS), which is like a runaway trnck
ramp for aircraft AND 3.Up to 900 feet
Option B. B-11 Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-I.None III Modified Standards Compliance in the Future:
Same as Option A, and adding future D-111 design
standards conditioned on addressing the Conditional Use
2.200 feet
Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements 3.Up to 900 feet
DECEMBER 08, 2021 2
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 310 of 383
and rcrnming 10 the Board to consider D-111 design
standards and a runway extension option AND
Option C. D-111 Modified Standards Compliance: This 1.370 feet alternative reconfigures the airport to meet the D-111
design standards. It would shift the runway 123 feel to
the north to provide the required separation between the
runway and taxiway and includes the installation of 2.800 lcct
EMAS on both ends of the runway AND
2. McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update:
Option A. Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option selected
above under Recommendation I related to airport design standard, including a potential runway
extension, together with the actions in Item 3 below.
OR
Option B. Do Nol Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H)
and direct staff 10 evaluate other airport classification options and retum lo the Board for
further direction upon evaluation AND establish appropriations of$1,100,000 in the Airport
Enterprise Fund (AF.I') Spending Plan 10 provide funds for the evaluation of other airport
classification options based on prior year available AEF fund balance. (4 VOTES)
3. If Recommendation 2A is selected, then certify and adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update Environmental Documents together with its action to adopt the MPU:
If the Board adopts the McClellan-Palomar Airpon Master !'Ian Update (Auachment H), then
certify that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), SCH No. 2016021105
has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board, that the Boartl reviewed
and considered the information contained therein, and that the Final PEIR reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Board (Attachment B); AND
A. Adopt the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant 10
Section 15091 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment C); AND
B. Adopt the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND
C. Adopt the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of drall PEIR
(Attachment F); AND
D. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance
with Section 15097 ofCEQA Guidelines (Auachmcnt G).
DECEMBER 08, 202 l 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 311 of 383
4. If Recommendation 2A is selected to Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Update, then provide direction on a sustainability plan by selecting one of the following
options:
Option A. Direct staff to prepare a McClellan-Palomar Airport Sustainability Plan
OR
Option B. Direct staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority
on implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport [Staff
Recommendation}
5. If Recommendation 2B is selected to Not Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan,
provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan with a new Master Plan:
Direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrnted
Sustainability AND establish appropriations of $4,500,000 in the Airport Enterprise Fund
(AEF) Spending Plan to provide funds for development of a Master Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrated Sustainability based on prior year available AEF
fund balance. (4 VOTES)
EQUITY IMPACT STATEMENT
The eight airports owned and operated by the County of San Diego, Public Works, Airports (County
Airports) provide vital air transportation hubs, emergency response facilities, and economic engines.
The County pursues delivery of services at County Airports and actively works to remove barriers,
encourage panicipation, and provide competitive opportunities for small businesses that traditionally
have less working capital and husiness owners and managers that may be socially and economically
underserved, through public outreach and added consideration in our procurement and leasing selection
criteria
County Airports connect rural, suburban, and urban communities, businesses, and people by facilitating
over 518,000 commercial (usingsmall 30 to 70 passenger aircraft), corporate (up to approximately 20
passengers), government, and private aircraft operations annually. As bases for CalFirc, US Forest
Service, Sheriff Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies, and Mercy Air, County Airports
ensure the readiness and rapid response of emergency services for community members, including
underscrvcd communities. County Airports are home to over 100 aeronautical and non-aeronautical
businesses. Through rents and user fees, County Airports arc 100% scll~fundcd, allowing General Fund
revenues to be used for other priorities.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for this request are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Operational Plan for the Master Plan
Update (MPU). If the current MPU is approved with an accompanying sustainability plan, this request
will result in no change in the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF} for PY 2021-2022.
If the Board directs staff to not adopt the Palomar Airport Master Plan, evaluate other airpo11
classification options and return to the Board for further guidance upon evaluation (Recommendation
2B) or to prepare a new Master Plan with integrated sustainability (Recommendation 5), this request will
result in costs of up to $4.5 million in consultant services and staff costs for FY 2021-22. The funding
source is the prior year available AEF fund balance. There will be no change in net General Fund cost
and no additional staff years.
DECEMBER 08, 2021 4
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 312 of 383
The proposed actions will not commit the County lo construct any facilities or improvements and will
not financially obligate the County. Staff will rctum to the Board at a future date for approval IO
advertise and award construction contracts as projects arc fully designed, and for any necessary
appropriations as funding becomes available for implementing the Board's selected MPU alternative. It
is expected the projects will be completed in phases over the 20-ycar planning period, and staff will seek
authorization to apply for federal and State grants in future years.
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies Palomar as a National Primary Commercial
Service Airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airports System, indicating both its national
significance and its eligibility for fodcral grant funding for airport improvements. The FAA-certified
Palomar for air carrier service in 1996, which grants airlines the authority to offer scheduled flights to
the community and the greater San Diego region. The FAA-certified smaller, less-active airports, like
Palomar, to become commercial service airports that offer regional service for JO to 70 passenger
aircrafts, with the focus to make services affordable for the region without compromising safety and
operational capabilities. Aller Palomar was certified for Regional Service, airlines offered flights to Los
Angeles and Phoenix using small, 30-passengcr aircraft. This Regional Service at Palomar increased to
an annual peak of78,5l9 passengers in 2000. Beginning in 2008, airlines began to discontinue the use
of this type of aircraft. The newer regional aircraft cannot operate at Palomar due to its short runway
length, and Region~! Service ended in 2015.
With continued interest of residents and stakeholders, the MPU contemplated future Regional Service at
Palomar. However, there arc several factors that limit Regional Service, such as the nmway length,
design standards, pavement strength, aircraft parking areas, and passenger terminal capacity. The
runway length and design standards are the most critical. Palomar has a single 4,897-foot nmway.
Within the contiguous United States, there are no airports with runways less than 5,000 feet that have
commercial air service.
Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger aircraft could provide additional revenues to
the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) from commercial landing fees, parking, and foci flowagc; restaurant
and rcn1al car concessions; and vehicle parking. Also, the FAA currently allocates $150,000 in Airport
Improvement Program Entitlement grant funding 10 Palomar annually, which would increase to a
minimum of$! million, if Palomar were to have over 10,000 commercial passengers per year, using
small, passenger aircraft. The f AA also allows commercial service airports to collect a Passenger
Facility Charge (Pl'C) from airlines to help pay for needed capital improvements. PFCs could generate
up to $2 million in addi1ional revenue annually.
In addition to more and closer air travel options, Regional Service at Palomar using small, regional, 30
to 70 passenger aircraft also has po1cntial economic benefits 10 employees, businesses, and
municipalities in Nor1h Counly and the region. The McClellan-Palomar Airport Economic Impact
Analysis Report determined that, without Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger
aircra!l, Palomar currently supports 2,590 johs and generates $461 million in economic activity and $72
million in tax revenue. Without further development, Palomar would support an estimated 3,380 jobs
and generate $596 million in economic activity and $94 million in tax revenues in 2036. The MPU
presented today forccastcd the ability of the airport to accommodate up 10 575,000 passengers annually,
on small, regional, JO to 70 passenger aircraft. In this scenario, Palomar's economic activity would
almost double. with an estimated 6,720 jobs and generale $1.0 billion in annual economic activity and
$160 million in annual tax revenues.
DECEMBER 08, 2021 5
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 313 of 383
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Desmond, seconded by Supervisor Lawson-Remer, lhc Board of
Supervisors took the following actions:
I. Certified and adopled the McClellan-Palomar Airport Mas1er Plan Update Environmental
Documents 1oge1her with its ac!ion to adopt 1he MPU (Ref. Board Letter Recommendation 3):
Certified lhal lhe F'in.il Program Environmental lmpac1 Report (PElR), SCH No.2016021 I 05 has
been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines, that the F'inal PF,IR was presented to the Board, 1ha1 the Board reviewed and considered
lhc information comaincd therein, and that the Final PEIR rcflecls the independent judgment and
analysis of 1he Board; AND
A. Adopted the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmenlal Effeels pursuant to
Seclion 15091 ofCEQA Guidelines (Altachment C); AND
B. Adopted the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND
C. Adopted the dccision and explanation regarding recirculation of draft PEIR (Attachment F);
AND
D. Adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with
Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines (Anachment G).
2. Selected the airport design standard, including a poten1ial runway extension (Ref. Board Letter
Reeommcnda1ion 1 ):
Option B. B-11 Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-111 Modified Standards Compliance in the
Future: Same as Option A, and adding future D-lll design standards conditioned on addressing the
Conditional Use Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements and returning to the Board to
consider D-111 design standards and a runway extension option AND
Runway Extension of200 feet that allows a variance ofup to 10% if needed.
3. Selected the McClellan-Palomar Airport Mas1cr Plan Update (Ref. Board Letter Recommendalion 2):
Option A. Adopted lhe McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option
selected under Board Lener Recommendation I related to airport design standard, including a
potential runway extension, together with the actions in 11cm 1 above.
4. Provided direction on a sustainability plan by selecting (Ref. Board Let1cr Recommendation 4):
Option B. Directed staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority on
implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport
5. Directed the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a lencr to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and work with the local congressional delegation that requests the following:
a. Establishment of quiet hours
b. If quiet hours arc unable to be acquired, eslablish a fee structure that increases foes for aircraft
flying during quite hours
A YES: Vargas, Anderson, Lawson-Remer, Fletcher, Desmond
DECEMBER 08, 2021 6
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 314 of 383
State of California)
County of San Diego)§
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, tmc and correct copy of the Original entered in the Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors.
ANORF,W POTTER
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Signed
by Andrew Potter
DECEMBER 08, 2021 7
From:Vickey Syage
To:Jason Haber; Mike Strong
Cc:Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson
Subject:BOS Palomar Master Plan Update - Dec 8, 2021 Agenda Item #6
Date:Monday, July 15, 2024 5:35:33 PM
Attachments:2021-12-08 BOS Palomar Master Plan Update Minute Order.pdf2021-12-08 BOS 2021 Palomar Master Plan Transcripts.pdfIMG_8705.jpegIMG_8704.jpeg
Hi Jason and Mike,
Based on my conversation with Jason today, attached please find:
Dec 8, 2021 BOS Minute Order for Agenda Item #6 - Palomar Airport Master Plan
Update - Highlighted section states Staff must return to the BOS for Board ApprovalDec 8, 2021 BOS Transcripts of Supervisors’ questions of clarification about what they
were voting on - Agenda Item #6Link to the BOS Dec 8, 2021 Meeting Video - Agenda Item #6 is the Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update discussion and vote.
https://sdcounty.granicus.com/player/clip/3137?view_id=9&redirect=true
New “Ultimate Configuration ALP” - Sent to the FAA by the County for the D-IIIconfiguration, which is a new runway, 900 feet longer than the existing runway, located
150 feet north of the existing runway. The old runway would no longer be used andwould no longer be considered a runway.
I think this shows that the County DOES NOT have an approved D-III plan, therefore, it
appears the “Ultimate ALP”, which shows was submitted with incorrect information to theFAA.
There is no approved D-III airport plan.
Thank you.Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 315 of 383
!ill [iJ]
•
•
•
•
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - LAND USE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2021
MINUTE ORDER NO. 6 SUBJECT: ADOPT MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE,
CERTIFY MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY (DISTRICT: 5) OVERVIEW McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar) is located in the City of Carlsbad and is one of eight airports
owned and operated by the County of San Diego (County), at no cost to the General Fund. Palomar was
constructed on County-owned property, and when it opened in 1959, the surrounding area consisted mainly of agricultural uses. Over the last 60 years, light industrial, commercial, and recreational uses have developed around the airport. The City of Carlsbad annexed the airport in 1978, citing economic benefits including significant tax revenues for the City and increased services for the County. Today, the
airport serves the community and region as a vital air transportation hub, an emergency services facility,
and an economic engine that supports 2,590 local jobs and generates $72 million in tax revenues and $461 million in economic activity annually. Palomar is a federally funded public-use airport and part of the national air transportation system. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates this system and by federal law, airport owners and
operators, such as the County, cannot restrict the size or type of aircraft landing or taking off from an airport. The FAA provides airports with guidance to safely accommodate the types of aircraft that use an airport, which is the foundation for the safety enhancements identified in the Palomar Master Plan Update (MPU). The FAA generally provides up to 90% grant funding for safety improvements;
however, an approved and current Airport Layout Plan, which is included as part of the Master Plan, is
required to be eligible for funding. On December 16, 2015 (3), the County Board of Supervisors (Board) directed staff to update the Master Plan for Palomar. The Master Plan is a 20-year planning road map for airport capital improvements that
emphasizes safety. The most recent Master Plan for Palomar, completed in 1997, had reached the end of
its 20-year planning period. On September 25, 2013 (2), the Board considered the findings of a 2013 Feasibility Study, which studied a longer runway. The Board directed staff to focus the MPU on safety improvements for the aircraft currently using the airport while remaining within the existing airport property boundaries.
On October 10, 2018 (1) the Board approved the MPU and certified the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). On November 6, 2018, a petition for Writ of Mandate and complaint was filed by Citizens for a Friendly Airport, challenging the Board’s decision. On January 26, 2021, the Superior Court (Court) filed a Minute Order upholding the Final PEIR analysis and dismissing the claims, except
on two items. While the Court determined the PEIR’s noise analysis was generally adequate, the Court
found the Final PEIR should have included supplemental noise analysis for areas farther from Palomar. In addition, the Court ruled that an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) with the City of Carlsbad must be sought if the design status of the airport is changed to accommodate the design critical aircraft.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 316 of 383
On March 4, 2021, the Court ordered the County to set aside all approvals associated with the October 10, 2018, decision, which included the approval of the MPU, certification for the Final PEIR, and
related actions, within 60 days. On May 5, 2021 (13), the Board rescinded the MPU and de-certified the
PEIR and related environmental findings pursuant to the Court’s order. The County has now completed the additional noise analysis, as directed by the Court, and updated the PEIR and MPU to address the potential need for an amendment to the CUP. Staff has also developed
options for the Board’s consideration that would demonstrate the County’s leadership in sustainability.
This is a request for the Board to: (1) select the airport design standard for Palomar, including a potential runway extension, which will increase federal grant funding eligibility, and allow the County to pursue safety enhancement projects to protect aircraft currently using Palomar. The Board will select either:
(2A) adopt the MPU and take the actions in Item 3 below relating to the Final PEIR, or (2B) not adopt
the MPU. If Recommendation 2A is selected to adopt the MPU, then, together with its action to adopt the MPU, the Board must (3) certify the associated Final PEIR and supporting documents, which, with the added
noise analysis, is consistent with the direction of the Superior Court.
(4) If the MPU and associated Final PEIR are adopted and certified, provide direction to staff on sustainability options, with staff’s recommendation being to pursue an airport system-wide sustainability plan that will position the County to become a leader in aviation-based sustainability across the region.
If Recommendation 2B is selected to not adopt the MPU, then the Board will direct staff to evaluate other airport classifications; return to the Board for further direction upon evaluation and establish appropriations based on prior year Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) Balance of $1,100,000.
(5) If the MPU is not adopted, the Board can also direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for Palomar
Airport and provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan. RECOMMENDATION(S) CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
See the Background Section of the Board Letter under Airport Design Standards and Attachment H for
additional details on the Airport Master Plan Update options. 1. Select the airport design standard, including a potential runway extension:
Airport Design (Pick One)
Runway Extension (Pick One)
Option A. B-II Enhanced Facility: Current design enhanced with installation of an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS), which is like a runaway truck ramp for aircraft AND
1.None
2.200 feet
3.Up to 900 feet
Option B. B-II Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-III Modified Standards Compliance in the Future: Same as Option A, and adding future D-III design standards conditioned on addressing the Conditional Use
Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements
1.None
2.200 feet
3.Up to 900 feet
AND
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 317 of 383
I I
and returning to the Board to consider D-III design standards and a runway extension option AND
Option C. D-III Modified Standards Compliance: This alternative reconfigures the airport to meet the D-III design standards. It would shift the runway 123 feet to the north to provide the required separation between the runway and taxiway and includes the installation of
EMAS on both ends of the runway AND
1.370 feet
2.800 feet
2. McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update: Option A. Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option selected above under Recommendation 1 related to airport design standard, including a potential runway
extension, together with the actions in Item 3 below. OR Option B. Do Not Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H)
and direct staff to evaluate other airport classification options and return to the Board for further direction upon evaluation AND establish appropriations of $1,100,000 in the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) Spending Plan to provide funds for the evaluation of other airport classification options based on prior year available AEF fund balance. (4 VOTES)
3. If Recommendation 2A is selected, then certify and adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update Environmental Documents together with its action to adopt the MPU: If the Board adopts the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H), then certify that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), SCH No. 2016021105
has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board, that the Board reviewed and considered the information contained therein, and that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board (Attachment B); AND
A. Adopt the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant to Section 15091 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment C); AND B. Adopt the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND
C. Adopt the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of draft PEIR (Attachment F); AND D. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment G).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 318 of 383
4. If Recommendation 2A is selected to Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, then provide direction on a sustainability plan by selecting one of the following
options:
Option A. Direct staff to prepare a McClellan-Palomar Airport Sustainability Plan OR
Option B. Direct staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority on implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport [Staff Recommendation]
5. If Recommendation 2B is selected to Not Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan,
provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan with a new Master Plan: Direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrated Sustainability AND establish appropriations of $4,500,000 in the Airport Enterprise Fund
(AEF) Spending Plan to provide funds for development of a Master Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrated Sustainability based on prior year available AEF fund balance. (4 VOTES) EQUITY IMPACT STATEMENT
The eight airports owned and operated by the County of San Diego, Public Works, Airports (County
Airports) provide vital air transportation hubs, emergency response facilities, and economic engines. The County pursues delivery of services at County Airports and actively works to remove barriers, encourage participation, and provide competitive opportunities for small businesses that traditionally have less working capital and business owners and managers that may be socially and economically
underserved, through public outreach and added consideration in our procurement and leasing selection
criteria County Airports connect rural, suburban, and urban communities, businesses, and people by facilitating over 518,000 commercial (using small 30 to 70 passenger aircraft), corporate (up to approximately 20
passengers), government, and private aircraft operations annually. As bases for CalFire, US Forest
Service, Sheriff Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies, and Mercy Air, County Airports ensure the readiness and rapid response of emergency services for community members, including underserved communities. County Airports are home to over 100 aeronautical and non-aeronautical businesses. Through rents and user fees, County Airports are 100% self-funded, allowing General Fund
revenues to be used for other priorities.
FISCAL IMPACT Funds for this request are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Operational Plan for the Master Plan Update (MPU). If the current MPU is approved with an accompanying sustainability plan, this request
will result in no change in the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) for FY 2021-2022.
If the Board directs staff to not adopt the Palomar Airport Master Plan, evaluate other airport classification options and return to the Board for further guidance upon evaluation (Recommendation 2B) or to prepare a new Master Plan with integrated sustainability (Recommendation 5), this request will
result in costs of up to $4.5 million in consultant services and staff costs for FY 2021-22. The funding
source is the prior year available AEF fund balance. There will be no change in net General Fund cost and no additional staff years.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 319 of 383
The proposed actions will not commit the County to construct any facilities or improvements and will not financially obligate the County. Staff will return to the Board at a future date for approval to
advertise and award construction contracts as projects are fully designed, and for any necessary
appropriations as funding becomes available for implementing the Board’s selected MPU alternative. It is expected the projects will be completed in phases over the 20-year planning period, and staff will seek authorization to apply for federal and State grants in future years.
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies Palomar as a National Primary Commercial Service Airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airports System, indicating both its national significance and its eligibility for federal grant funding for airport improvements. The FAA-certified Palomar for air carrier service in 1996, which grants airlines the authority to offer scheduled flights to
the community and the greater San Diego region. The FAA-certified smaller, less-active airports, like
Palomar, to become commercial service airports that offer regional service for 30 to 70 passenger aircrafts, with the focus to make services affordable for the region without compromising safety and operational capabilities. After Palomar was certified for Regional Service, airlines offered flights to Los Angeles and Phoenix using small, 30-passenger aircraft. This Regional Service at Palomar increased to
an annual peak of 78,519 passengers in 2000. Beginning in 2008, airlines began to discontinue the use
of this type of aircraft. The newer regional aircraft cannot operate at Palomar due to its short runway length, and Regional Service ended in 2015. With continued interest of residents and stakeholders, the MPU contemplated future Regional Service at
Palomar. However, there are several factors that limit Regional Service, such as the runway length,
design standards, pavement strength, aircraft parking areas, and passenger terminal capacity. The runway length and design standards are the most critical. Palomar has a single 4,897-foot runway. Within the contiguous United States, there are no airports with runways less than 5,000 feet that have commercial air service.
Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger aircraft could provide additional revenues to the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) from commercial landing fees, parking, and fuel flowage; restaurant and rental car concessions; and vehicle parking. Also, the FAA currently allocates $150,000 in Airport Improvement Program Entitlement grant funding to Palomar annually, which would increase to a
minimum of $1 million, if Palomar were to have over 10,000 commercial passengers per year, using
small, passenger aircraft. The FAA also allows commercial service airports to collect a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) from airlines to help pay for needed capital improvements. PFCs could generate up to $2 million in additional revenue annually.
In addition to more and closer air travel options, Regional Service at Palomar using small, regional, 30
to 70 passenger aircraft also has potential economic benefits to employees, businesses, and municipalities in North County and the region. The McClellan-Palomar Airport Economic Impact Analysis Report determined that, without Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger aircraft, Palomar currently supports 2,590 jobs and generates $461 million in economic activity and $72
million in tax revenue. Without further development, Palomar would support an estimated 3,380 jobs
and generate $596 million in economic activity and $94 million in tax revenues in 2036. The MPU presented today forecasted the ability of the airport to accommodate up to 575,000 passengers annually, on small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger aircraft. In this scenario, Palomar’s economic activity would almost double, with an estimated 6,720 jobs and generate $1.0 billion in annual economic activity and
$160 million in annual tax revenues.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 320 of 383
ACTION: ON MOTION of Supervisor Desmond, seconded by Supervisor Lawson-Remer, the Board of
Supervisors took the following actions:
1. Certified and adopted the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update Environmental Documents together with its action to adopt the MPU (Ref. Board Letter Recommendation 3): Certified that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), SCH No. 2016021105 has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board, that the Board reviewed and considered
the information contained therein, and that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board; AND A. Adopted the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant to Section 15091 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment C); AND
B. Adopted the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND C. Adopted the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of draft PEIR (Attachment F); AND
D. Adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment G). 2. Selected the airport design standard, including a potential runway extension (Ref. Board Letter
Recommendation 1):
Option B. B-II Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-III Modified Standards Compliance in the Future: Same as Option A, and adding future D-III design standards conditioned on addressing the Conditional Use Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements and returning to the Board to
consider D-III design standards and a runway extension option AND
Runway Extension of 200 feet that allows a variance of up to 10% if needed. 3. Selected the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Ref. Board Letter Recommendation 2):
Option A. Adopted the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option selected under Board Letter Recommendation 1 related to airport design standard, including a potential runway extension, together with the actions in Item 1 above.
4. Provided direction on a sustainability plan by selecting (Ref. Board Letter Recommendation 4):
Option B. Directed staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority on implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport
5. Directed the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and work with the local congressional delegation that requests the following: a. Establishment of quiet hours b. If quiet hours are unable to be acquired, establish a fee structure that increases fees for aircraft flying during quite hours
AYES: Vargas, Anderson, Lawson-Remer, Fletcher, Desmond
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 321 of 383
State of California)
County of San Diego) §
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Original entered in the Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors. ANDREW POTTER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Signed by Andrew Potter
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 322 of 383
"'ivt:~
~ : >/
July 12, 2024 1
San Diego County Board of Supervisors Meeting
Dec 8, 2021 - Agenda Item #6
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
Speakers:
NF - Chair Supervisor Nathan Fletcher
NV – Vice Chair Supervisor Nora Vargas
TLR – Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer
JD – Supervisor Jim Desmond
CH – Director of Airports – Cameron Humphres
Time
Stamp
HR:Min
Speaker
Transcript
3:27 CH “I understand the option on the table is the B-II airport”
3:28 NF “Bulk of complaints are from smaller aircraft circling the airport…..
not from take-oZ and landings.
CH “Chair Fletcher, you are absolutely correct.”
3:29 NF “So, the length of the runway only impacts noise on takeoZ and
landings”
CH “It impacts noise on departure.”
NF “Small number of the total noise complaints, the bulk”
CH “That is correct…. only about 10% is from jets.”
3:30 NV “I just need clarification. We have a motion on the floor that’s 200
feet, or 10%, right? If we approve that, is if there needs to be a
change to make it bigger or longer or 900 feet or 800 later, what is
the process?”
CH “StaZ would have to come back to the Board and have and get
direction from the Board to move to a D-III……. Come back to the
Board for consideration of the D-III.”
3:31 NF “The question is all you have right here is a B-II…. Would you do
more than 200 feet?”
CH “Chair Fletcher, no.”
NF “This is my point. You’re going to have to come back to us if you
want to go D-III. Is the point that D-III might need more than 200
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 323 of 383
July 12, 2024 2
feet…. Given we’re only doing B-II today, so 200 feet is all you’re
going to need. If we’re going D-III, that would be a topic for another
day. I want to confirm my understanding is correct.”
CH “That is correct, Chair Fletcher.”
3:32 JD “That 200 feet is throw away essentially….Let’s leave it at the 200
now, we come back and revisit this after we get some other things
cleared up and go any further with the D-III. So, I’m going to leave it
at that.
NF “Seconder of the Motion [TLR], do you concur?”
TLR I completely agree
3:32:30 NF We have a motion and a second. Everyone know what we’re voting
on?
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 324 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Jason Haber; Mike Strong
Cc:Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson
Subject:Re: BOS Palomar Master Plan Update - Dec 8, 2021 Agenda Item #6
Date:Tuesday, July 16, 2024 7:41:24 AM
Attachments:thumb_custom.png
Mike - Here is the link for the ALUC July 11, 2024 meeting. The ALUC meeting starts at
minute 35 and runs for about a half an hour.Thank you.
VIckey Syage
thumb_custom.png
Ravnur Media Platform
video.sdcoe.net
On Jul 15, 2024, at 5:32 PM, Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jason and Mike,
Based on my conversation with Jason today, attached please find:
Dec 8, 2021 BOS Minute Order for Agenda Item #6 - Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update - Highlighted section states Staff must return to theBOS for Board Approval
Dec 8, 2021 BOS Transcripts of Supervisors’ questions of clarificationabout what they were voting on - Agenda Item #6
Link to the BOS Dec 8, 2021 Meeting Video - Agenda Item #6 is thePalomar Airport Master Plan Update discussion and vote.
https://sdcounty.granicus.com/player/clip/3137?view_id=9&redirect=true
New “Ultimate Configuration ALP” - Sent to the FAA by the County for
the D-III configuration, which is a new runway, 900 feet longer than theexisting runway, located 150 feet north of the existing runway. The old
runway would no longer be used and would no longer be considered arunway.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 325 of 383
•
•
•
•
I think this shows that the County DOES NOT have an approved D-III plan,
therefore, it appears the “Ultimate ALP”, which shows was submitted withincorrect information to the FAA.
There is no approved D-III airport plan.
Thank you.Vickey Syage
<2021-12-08 BOS Palomar Master Plan Update Minute Order.pdf>
<2021-12-08 BOS 2021 Palomar Master Plan Transcripts.pdf><IMG_8705.jpeg>
<IMG_8704.jpeg>
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 326 of 383
From:Shirley
To:Mike Strong; Jason Haber
Subject:Palomar Airport FAA Grant Assurances
Date:Sunday, July 28, 2024 10:23:13 AM
Attachments:PAAC Grant Assurances Explained2024.docx
Good Morning Mike and Jason,
I wanted to bring to your attention an issue that has bothered me for sometime,
specifically, what are the obligations for taking FAA grant money? It was a question I
posed to Jamie Abbott at the last PAAC meeting and was rebuffed with a comment
of, if an airport takes any FAA grant money they are obligated. PAAC memberGordon Nesbitt also jumped in the state the same fact. Yesterday, I was reading an
article in the Boulder dailycamera.com publication regarding a situation at a small
airport in Boulder, Colorado that the owner operators, (The City of Boulder) want to
close down. The City of Boulder has filed a lawsuit with the FAA demanding their(local control) State rights.
Link to article https://www.dailycamera.com/2024/07/27/boulder-sues-faa-over-
possible-airport-closure/
The statement in the dailycamera.com article that made me sit up and take notice
was:
While the city of Boulder has previously accepted FAA grant funding for airport
maintenance, each grant agreement the city accepts obligates the city to keep the
airport open for a maximum of 20 more years. So, the city has stopped accepting
grants so it can lawfully close the airport after 2040, when the current contract
expires.
However, according to the lawsuit, the FAA has claimed that three grants the city
accepted between 30 and 65 years ago were for the acquisition of real property, and
hence, the city must keep the airport open in perpetuity until and unless the FAA
decides otherwise.
“The FAA’s position is not only inconsistent with the express terms of its grant
agreements with the City but is also an unconstitutional overreach – in violation of the
separation of powers doctrine, the Spending Clause, and the Fifth and Tenth
Amendments – that wrests from the City its ability to provide for the public health,safety, and welfare of its citizens, and clouds the City’s fee simple title to the property
comprising the Airport,” the complaint reads.
Palomar Airport was established in 1958, just at 65 years ago. What FAA grant
obligations does Palomar currently have? The County, again, is not forthcomingwhen providing information that is relevant to the local control that Carlsbad is entitled
to. If we don't know what FAA Grant obligations they are, how can you proceed and
make proper judgements, and why does the County hide this information? It is my
belief that the County has not received an FAA Grant for Palomar in at least 10years. I am attaching an article that explains the obligations of FAA Grant
Assurances. When you read the article note the obligations of the airport receiving
the money. My take is, the County agreement to waive airport fees for American
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 327 of 383
Airlines may be in violation of receiving FAA grant money for Airport improvements,
such as an runway extension.
Just my thought on this,
Regards, Shirley Anderson
Carlsbad Representative & Vice Chair - PAAC
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 328 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong; Jason Haber
Cc:Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney
Subject:Fwd: [External] Public Records Request - Palomar Airport
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 4:18:11 PM
Attachments:CRQ ALUC County Response Ltr Re Carlsbad Gen Plan Amend Jul 9 2024.pdfCRQ ALP FAA Approval Ltr Jul 10 2024.pdf
Hi Mike and Jason,
Wanted to make sure you both had:
1. County’s letter to the ALUC2. FAA Approval letter for the County’s ALP
The supporting documents and communications between the FAA and the County are due
Aug. 5th. We believe the Ultimate ALP should not have been submitted to the FAA as the D-III plan has not been approved by the BOS, nor has the County come to Carlsbad for an
amendment to the CUP as ordered by the Court, but until we receive the back updocumentation, we don’t exactly know what the County provided to the FAA.
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Griffiths, Roger" <Roger.Griffiths@sdcounty.ca.gov>Subject: RE: [External] Fwd: Public Records Request - Palomar
Airport
Date: July 24, 2024 at 9:04:18 AM PDT
To: Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com>Cc: "Pasumarthi, Murali" <Murali.Pasumarthi@sdcounty.ca.gov>, "Abbott,
Jamie" <Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Good Morning Vickey,
Hope all is well with you. Please find attached the two letters in question, we will
continue to work to on item 2.
Regards,
Roger
From: Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:11 PM
To: Griffiths, Roger <Roger.Griffiths@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Cc: Pasumarthi, Murali <Murali.Pasumarthi@sdcounty.ca.gov>; Abbott, Jamie
<Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 329 of 383
Subject: [External] Fwd: Public Records Request - Palomar Airport
Hi Roger,
Jamie Abbot’s automatic reply suggested this should be sent to you as well.
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
Begin forwarded message:
From: Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com>Subject: Re: Public Records Request - Palomar Airport
Date: July 23, 2024 at 2:07:42 PM PDT
To: clerk@sdcounty.ca.gov
Cc: "Abbott, Jamie" <jamie.abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov>, "Otto,
John" <john.otto@sdcounty.ca.gov>, "Smith, Rebecca (BOS)"
<Rebecca.Smith2@sdcounty.ca.gov>, Murali Pasumarthi
<Murali.Pasumarthi@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Hi Jamie,
As requested by Murali on our call this morning, please bifurcate
Request Item #2 from #1 and #3. The letters outlined in #1 and
#3 were presented to the ALUC on Thursday, July 11, 2024 and
should be readily available to meet the 10 day deadline outlined
the the CA Public Records Act.
I fully understand that #2 may take some time to gather, and
therefore the Aug 5, 2024 date is necessary for the County.
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
On Jul 12, 2024, at 11:54 AM, Vickey Syage
<vickey.syage@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Could the County please provide the following in
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 330 of 383
response to this public records request:
1. Letter from the FAA approving the D-III Ultimate
ALP - received by the County in July 2024.
a. Please include all approval letters from the
FAA for the 2022 ALP submission
2. Communications , reports, data sent to the FAA
with the Current, Future, and Ultimate ALP maps sent
to the FAA and FAA responses to the County. We
have been provided with access to the actual ALP
maps, but no supporting documentaion or
communications.
3. Request from the County to the ALUC to update
the current 2010/2011 ALUP from July 2024
These documents were discussed by the County at
yesterday’s ALUC meeting (Agenda Item #2 -
Changed to 2A, July 11, 2024).
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 331 of 383
July 9, 2024
Kim Becker, President and CEO San Diego County Regional Airport Authority PO Box 82776 San Diego, CA
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN GOVERNING EXPANSION OF AIRPORT USES RELATED TO MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
Dear Ms. Becker,
The County of San Diego (County) is responding to the proposed consistency determination that was made by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff on June 18, 2024, regarding proposed amendments to the City of Carlsbad (City) General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Plan (GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021) (Attachment A). The County is the owner and operator of McClellan-Palomar Airport (Airport) and is concerned with the City’s proposed amendments aimed to prevent the County from implementing safety improvements included in the Airport Master Plan (Master Plan) approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 2021,
(Attachment B) (6). Rather than amend its land use regulations to account for the planned safety improvements, the City’s proposal seeks to prohibit what it improperly identifies as an airport “expansion” and potentially facilitate incompatible land uses in a future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), placing aircraft operations, people, and property in the vicinity of the Airport at increased risk. The City’s proposal is inherently inconsistent with state-
mandated airport land use planning that the ALUC is charged with overseeing.
The primary objective of the Master Plan is to improve safe operations for aircraft already using the Airport, largely motivated by a desire to address an accident that occurred at the Airport on January 25, 2006, in which four people were killed, and to help prevent
future incidents. At the time the Master Plan was approved, the Gulfstream G650, a D-III aircraft, was identified as the design-critical aircraft for the Airport. To safely accommodate this aircraft, the Master Plan contemplates a northward shift of the runway to achieve FAA-required wingtip separation from Taxiway A and a small runway extension
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, ROOM 212, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2422
(619) 531-6256
AMY HARBERT INTERIM DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 332 of 383
with Energy Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) at either end of the relocated runway to, among other things, meet FAA runway safety area requirements. The relocation and extension of the runway requires the RPZ at either end of the runway be moved to the north. While the Airport is safe for aircraft to use today, it is critical for the County to
implement these safety enhancements based on the D-III, design-critical, aircraft to help prevent future incidents. The County submitted the Master Plan to the ALUC and received feedback on March 19, 2018. The ALUC intended to utilize this document to update the 2008 McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter 2008 ALUCP), emphasizing the need for accurate RPZ depictions as part of the update process. The ALUC approved the Master Plan during the November 1, 2018 ALUC meeting, and directed ALUC staff to update the 2008 ALUCP to align with the Master Plan alternative ultimately chosen and approved by the County Board. The Master Plan that included the D-III modified design (Alternative 5)
was approved by the County Board on December 8, 2021 (6). The following references are provided for your consideration: 1. Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21674.5 provides that, “An airport land use commission that formulates, adopts, or amends an airport land use compatibility
plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section
21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by
the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation.” 2. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that, “ALUCs protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” (Handbook, Sec. 1.1, P. 1-1). 3. PUC section 21675(a) provides that, “Each commission shall formulate an airport
land use compatibility plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public
airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the
commission and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the
vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The commission’s airport land use compatibility plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan or
an airport layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the
Department of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport
during at least the next 20 years.” There is no current ALUCP for the Airport. Section 3.2 of the 2008 ALUCP emphasizes
the importance of airport configurations in establishing compatibility maps, which include RPZs and noise contours. The planned facilities in the 2008 ALUCP exclude the runway relocation or shifting included in the current Master Plan. Specifically, an inconsistency exists between the 2008 ALUCP and the Master Plan regarding design standards. While the 2008 ALUCP adheres to C-II design standards, the Master Plan adopts D-III
standards as previously noted as the ultimate design. Additionally, the Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 333 of 383
specifies RPZ dimensions as 1700’ x 500’ x 700’ for Runway 6-24, whereas the current RPZ dimensions in the 2008 ALUCP are mapped further south as 1000’ x 500’ x 700’ and 2500’ x 1000’ x 1750’. It is imperative an ALUCP be adopted for the Airport in accordance with the ALUC’s November 1, 2018, direction to ensure potential changes to compatibility
maps are adequately addressed and to prevent incompatible land uses within the RPZ. State law makes it clear that the ALUC is required to adopt an ALUCP for the Airport based on the adopted Master Plan and that the ALUCP must provide for the “orderly growth” of the Airport. The express purpose of the City’s proposed changes is to prohibit
what it incorrectly identifies as the expansion of the Airport. If the City’s proposal is found to be consistent with the ALUCP for the Airport, it can only be because the ALUC has not taken action to adopt an ALUCP based on the current Master Plan. The Master Plan was approved nearly three years ago and no legal challenge was brought to the approval. The Master Plan and associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) are
legally beyond challenge and the ALUC has been aware of the proposed change to the ALUCP for over six years. Airport planning requires that ALUCPs be based on current airport master plans or airport layout plans. Cities and counties are in turn required to ensure their general plans and
zoning ordinances comply with the adopted ALUCPs. The absence of a current ALUCP is not an insignificant matter. The situation has allowed the City to attempt to implement land use regulations that are intended to prevent safety improvements needed to accommodate the design-critical aircraft from being implemented. The City seeks to take advantage of the ALUC’s failure to adopt a current ALUCP to force the County Master
Plan and resultant ALUCP to conform to the City’s vision of the Airport by potentially establishing incompatible uses. If allowed to proceed, under an improper consistency determination by the ALUC, the City would be effectively taking control of State mandated airport land use planning, which is not under the City’s legal purview. This vision discredits the importance of safety improvements and the risk of liability associated with the failure
to achieve them, something that appropriately would be placed on the City if the ALUC would properly find the City’s proposal inconsistent with the ALUCP. (See, PUC 21678 providing immunity for airport sponsors where a local agency overrules an inconsistency determination by an airport authority.)
County Airports urges the ALUC to refrain from issuing a consistency determination that supports amendments to the City’s general plan and zoning ordinance that contradict the airport planning process mandated by State law, and to promptly update the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP. In the meantime, the ALUC should declare a moratorium or take action on the premise that there is no current ALUCP. Otherwise, the ALUC will be facilitating
action to circumvent state-mandated airport planning, potentially placing current aircraft operations, people, and property at increased risk. The County appreciates your attention to these critical matters and looks forward to a timely and appropriate resolution. Our staff are available to connect on any needed
discussions or further inquiries. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 334 of 383
Tom Bosworth, Senior Deputy County Counsel at Thomas.Bosworth@sdcounty.ca.gov Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports at Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov. Sincerely,
Amy Harbert Interim Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chairwoman Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe Supervisor Jim Desmond Mayor Keith Blackburn, City of Carlsbad Guillermo Cabrera, Board Chair, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Raphael Perez, Board Member, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Ebony Shelton, Chief Administrative Officer William P. Morgan, Interim Director of Public Works Matthew Parr, Interim Director, Economic Development and Government Affairs Jamie Abbott, Director of County Airports Scott Chadwick, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, City of Carlsbad Ralph Redman, Manager Development Division, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
Attachments: Attachment A: June 18, 2024 San Diego County Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination – Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses related to McClellan-Paloma Airport, City of Carlsbad
Attachment B: December 8, 2021 County of San Diego Minute Order approving McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 335 of 383
1 ~
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 336 of 383
ATTACHMENT A
June 18, 2024 San Diego County Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission
Consistency Determination
Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport
Uses related to McClellan-Paloma Airport, City of Carlsbad
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 337 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNIY
REGIONAL
Al RPO RT
AUTHORITY
June 18, 2024
Mr. Mike Strong
City of Carlsbad
163S Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Airport land Use Commission Consistency Determination -Amendments to General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance Governing Expansion of Airport Uses Related to
McClellan-Palomar Airport, City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Strong:
As the Airport land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) acknowledges receipt of an application for a
determination of consistency for the project described above. The area covered by this
project lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Airport land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined
that it meets our requirements for completeness. In accordance with SDCRAA Policy 8.30
and applicable provisions of the State Aeronautics Act (Cat. Pub. Util. Code ~21670-21679.S),
ALUC staff will report to the Al UC that the proposed project is consistent with the
McClellan-Palomar Airport AlUCP based upon the facts and findings summarized below:
(1) The project Involves amendments to the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to specify and clarify policy objectives, code requirements, and permit review
procedures for new and expanded airport land uses on and around the property of
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
a) General plan amendments propose the following:
i. Specify as a policy statement City opposition to any changes to the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan
or approach speed for the airfield or that would accommodate larger
aircraft than are currently in use at the airport such that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) airport design classification would require
revision to anything other than a B•U Enhanced Alternative; and
ii. Specify definitions for "airport" and "airport expansion" congruent
respectively with the State Aeronautics Act definition of "airport" (Cal. Pub.
Util. Code §21013) and the standards of the Aeronautics Act which, if
exceeded, would require an amended Airport Permit from Caltrans Division
of Aeronautics (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21661.6); and
iii. Require new or expanded "airport" uses to obtain a new or amended
conditional use permit; and
PO 60)( 82776
Sano,090 CA92'38·2776
www.$an.org/alu(:
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 338 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
REGIONAL
AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
iv. Permit "airport" uses only within the current boundary of McClellan-
Palomar Airport.
b) Zoning ordinance amendments propose the following:
i. Permit "airport" uses only by issuance of a new or amended conditional use
permit; and
ii. Amend the zoning on properties adjacent to McClellan-Palomar Airport to
remove "airport" as permissible uses, such that only the property within
the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted in the city
zoning map would remain as permissible for "airport" uses.
(2) The AlVC does not exercise jurisdiction over operations of any airport, and its statutory
role and duty is to advise local agencies on the consistency of proposed projects within
the AIA of an adopted AlUCP (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21674).
(3) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP noise contours.
(41 The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP airspace protection
surfaces.
(5) The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
establish any use which would be incompatible within any ALUCP safety tones.
(61 The proposed project does not involve any actual development and, thus, would not
esublish any use which would be incompatible within the ALUCP overflight notification
area.
171 Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP.
(8) A determination of wnsistency is not a "project" as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21065, and is not a
"development" as defined by the California Coastal Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30106.
The information above will be reported to the ALUC to confirm this letter at its public
meeting on July 11, 2024. The determination of consistency will be final as of that meeting,
unless the ALUC finds cause to delay such action. in which case a determination will be
rendered within 60 days of the date of this letter, to be confirmed by additional
correspondence.
Any determination of consistency rendered by the ALUC is limited to the project plans and
descriptions submitted with the application and is not transferable to any revision of this or
any similar, future project involving a change in land use, in building or crane height, or ill
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 339 of 383
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
RFGIONAL
AIRPORT
AU 1 HOl<I IY
building area in excess of 10 percent (provided area increase does exceed ALUCP standards)
of any prior ALUC determination. Any change or exceedance in these characteristics
,equires a new consistency determination prior to decision-making consideration by the
local agency.
Please contact Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 or egowens@san.org if you have any questions
regarding this letter.
Yours truly,
Ralph Redman
Manager, Airport Planning
cc: Amy Gonzalez. SDCRAA General Counsel
Sjohnna Knack, SOCRAA Planning, Noise, & Environment
Jamie Abbott, County of San Diego Airports
AIRPORT
LAND USE
COMMISSION
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 340 of 383
ATTACHMENT B
December 8, 2021 County of San Diego Minute Order approving McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 341 of 383
COUNTY Of SAN DiEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -LAND USE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2021
MINUTE ORDER NO. 6
SUBJECT: ADOPT MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE,
CERTIFY MASTER PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY (DISTRICT: 5)
OVERVIEW
McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar) is located in the City of Carlsbad and is one of eight airports
owned and operated by the County of San Diego (County), at no cost to the General Fund. Palomar was
constrneted on County-owned property, and when it opened in 1959, the surrounding area consisted
mainly of agriculturnl uses. Over the last 60 years, light industrial, commercial, and recreational uses
have developed around the airport. The City of Carlsbad annexed the ailport in 1978, citing economic
benefits including significant tax revenues for the City and increased services for the County. Today, the
airport serves the community and region as a vital air transportation hub, an emergency services facility,
an<l an economic engine that supports 2,590 local jobs and generates $72 million in tax revenues and
$461 million in economic activity annually.
Palomar is a federally funded public-use airport and part of the national air transportation system. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates this system and hy federal law, airport owners and
operators, such as the County, cannot restrict the size or type of aircraft landing or taking off from an
airpo11. The FAA provides airports with guidance to safely accommodate the types of aircraft that use an
airport, which is the foundation for the safety enhancements identified in the Palomar Master Plan
Update (MPU). The FAA generally provides up 10 90% grant funding for safety improvements;
however, an approved and current Airport Layout Plan, which is included as part of the Master Plan, is
required to be eligible for funding.
On December 16, 2015 (3), the County Board of Supervisors (Board) directed staff lo update lhe Master
Plan for Palomar. The Master Plan is a 20-year planning road map for airport capital improvements that
emphasizes safety. The most recent Master Plan for Palomar, completed in 1997, had reached the end of
its 20-ycar planning period. On September 25, 2013 (2), the Board considered the findings ofa 2013
Feasibility Study, which studied a longer runway. The Board directed stafTto focus the MPU on safety
improvements for the aircraft currently using the airport while remaining within the existing airport
property boundaries.
On Octoher I 0, 2018 ( l) the Board approved the MPU and certified the Program Environmental Impact
Report (PEIR). On November 6, 2018, a pelition for Writ of Mandate and complaint was filed by
Citizens for a Friendly Airport, challenging the Board's decision. On January 26, 2021, lhe Superior
Court (Court) filed a Minute Order upholding the Final PEIR analysis and dismissing the claims, except
on two items. While the Court determined the PEIR's noise analysis was generally adequate, the Court
found lhe Final PEIR should have included supplemental noise analysis for areas farther from Palomar.
In addition, the Court ruled that an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) with the City of
Carlsbad must be sought if the design status of the airport is changed to accommodate the design critical
aircraft.
DECEMBER 08, 2021
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 342 of 383
On March 4, 2021, the Court ordered the County to set aside all approvals associated with the October
10, 2018, decision, which included the approval of the MPU, certification for the Final PEIR, and
related actions, within 60 days. On May 5, 2021 (13), the Board rescinded the MPU and de-certified the
PEIR and related environmental findings pursuant to the Court's order.
The County has now completed the additional noise analysis. as directed by the Court, and updated the
PEIR and MPU to address the potential need for an amendment to the CUP. Staff has also developed
options for the Board's consideration that would tlemonstr.ite the County's leadership in sustainability.
This is a request for the Board to: (l) select the airport design standard for Palomar, including a potential
runway extension, which will increase federal grant funding eligibility, and allow the County to pursue
safety enhancement projects to protect airer.in currently using Palomar. The Board will select either:
(2A) adopt the MPU and take the actions in Item 3 below relating to the Final PEIR, or (2B) not adopt
the MPU.
If Recommendation 2A is selected 10 adopt the MPU, then, together with its action to adopt the MPU,
the Bo.ird must (3) certify the associated Final PEIR and supporting documents, which, with the added
noise analysis, is consistent with the direction of the Superior Court.
(4) If the MPU and associated Final PEIR are adopted and certified, provide direction to staff on
sustainahility options, with staffs recommendation being to pursue an airpon system-wide sustainability
plan that will position the County to become a leader in aviation-hased sustainahility across the region.
If Recommendation 2B is selected to not adopt the MPU, then the Board will direct staff to evaluate
other airport classifications; return 10 the Board for further direction upon evaluation and establish
appropriations based on prior year Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) Balance of$ I, I 00,000.
( 5) If the MPU is not adopted, the Board can also direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for Palomar
Airport and provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan.
RECOMMENDATION(S)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
See the Background Section of the Board Lcucr under Airport Design Standards and Allachment H for
additional details on the Airport Master Plan Update options.
I. Select the airport design standard, including a potential runway extension:
Airport Design I AND I Runway Extension
(Ptck One) (Ptck One)
Option A. B-11 Enhanced Facility: Current design I .None
enhanced with installation of an Engineered Material
2.200 feet Arresting System (EMAS), which is like a runaway trnck
ramp for aircraft AND 3.Up to 900 feet
Option B. B-11 Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-I.None III Modified Standards Compliance in the Future:
Same as Option A, and adding future D-111 design
standards conditioned on addressing the Conditional Use
2.200 feet
Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements 3.Up to 900 feet
DECEMBER 08, 2021 2
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 343 of 383
and rcrnming 10 the Board to consider D-111 design
standards and a runway extension option AND
Option C. D-111 Modified Standards Compliance: This 1.370 feet alternative reconfigures the airport to meet the D-111
design standards. It would shift the runway 123 feel to
the north to provide the required separation between the
runway and taxiway and includes the installation of 2.800 lcct
EMAS on both ends of the runway AND
2. McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update:
Option A. Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option selected
above under Recommendation I related to airport design standard, including a potential runway
extension, together with the actions in Item 3 below.
OR
Option B. Do Nol Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H)
and direct staff 10 evaluate other airport classification options and retum lo the Board for
further direction upon evaluation AND establish appropriations of$1,100,000 in the Airport
Enterprise Fund (AF.I') Spending Plan 10 provide funds for the evaluation of other airport
classification options based on prior year available AEF fund balance. (4 VOTES)
3. If Recommendation 2A is selected, then certify and adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update Environmental Documents together with its action to adopt the MPU:
If the Board adopts the McClellan-Palomar Airpon Master !'Ian Update (Auachment H), then
certify that the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), SCH No. 2016021105
has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board, that the Boartl reviewed
and considered the information contained therein, and that the Final PEIR reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Board (Attachment B); AND
A. Adopt the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant 10
Section 15091 of CEQA Guidelines (Attachment C); AND
B. Adopt the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND
C. Adopt the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of drall PEIR
(Attachment F); AND
D. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance
with Section 15097 ofCEQA Guidelines (Auachmcnt G).
DECEMBER 08, 202 l 3
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 344 of 383
4. If Recommendation 2A is selected to Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Update, then provide direction on a sustainability plan by selecting one of the following
options:
Option A. Direct staff to prepare a McClellan-Palomar Airport Sustainability Plan
OR
Option B. Direct staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority
on implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport [Staff
Recommendation}
5. If Recommendation 2B is selected to Not Adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan,
provide direction on the inclusion of a sustainability plan with a new Master Plan:
Direct staff to prepare a new Master Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrnted
Sustainability AND establish appropriations of $4,500,000 in the Airport Enterprise Fund
(AEF) Spending Plan to provide funds for development of a Master Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport with Integrated Sustainability based on prior year available AEF
fund balance. (4 VOTES)
EQUITY IMPACT STATEMENT
The eight airports owned and operated by the County of San Diego, Public Works, Airports (County
Airports) provide vital air transportation hubs, emergency response facilities, and economic engines.
The County pursues delivery of services at County Airports and actively works to remove barriers,
encourage panicipation, and provide competitive opportunities for small businesses that traditionally
have less working capital and husiness owners and managers that may be socially and economically
underserved, through public outreach and added consideration in our procurement and leasing selection
criteria
County Airports connect rural, suburban, and urban communities, businesses, and people by facilitating
over 518,000 commercial (usingsmall 30 to 70 passenger aircraft), corporate (up to approximately 20
passengers), government, and private aircraft operations annually. As bases for CalFirc, US Forest
Service, Sheriff Aerial Support to Regional Enforcement Agencies, and Mercy Air, County Airports
ensure the readiness and rapid response of emergency services for community members, including
underscrvcd communities. County Airports are home to over 100 aeronautical and non-aeronautical
businesses. Through rents and user fees, County Airports arc 100% scll~fundcd, allowing General Fund
revenues to be used for other priorities.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for this request are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Operational Plan for the Master Plan
Update (MPU). If the current MPU is approved with an accompanying sustainability plan, this request
will result in no change in the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF} for PY 2021-2022.
If the Board directs staff to not adopt the Palomar Airport Master Plan, evaluate other airpo11
classification options and return to the Board for further guidance upon evaluation (Recommendation
2B) or to prepare a new Master Plan with integrated sustainability (Recommendation 5), this request will
result in costs of up to $4.5 million in consultant services and staff costs for FY 2021-22. The funding
source is the prior year available AEF fund balance. There will be no change in net General Fund cost
and no additional staff years.
DECEMBER 08, 2021 4
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 345 of 383
The proposed actions will not commit the County lo construct any facilities or improvements and will
not financially obligate the County. Staff will rctum to the Board at a future date for approval IO
advertise and award construction contracts as projects arc fully designed, and for any necessary
appropriations as funding becomes available for implementing the Board's selected MPU alternative. It
is expected the projects will be completed in phases over the 20-ycar planning period, and staff will seek
authorization to apply for federal and State grants in future years.
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies Palomar as a National Primary Commercial
Service Airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airports System, indicating both its national
significance and its eligibility for fodcral grant funding for airport improvements. The FAA-certified
Palomar for air carrier service in 1996, which grants airlines the authority to offer scheduled flights to
the community and the greater San Diego region. The FAA-certified smaller, less-active airports, like
Palomar, to become commercial service airports that offer regional service for JO to 70 passenger
aircrafts, with the focus to make services affordable for the region without compromising safety and
operational capabilities. Aller Palomar was certified for Regional Service, airlines offered flights to Los
Angeles and Phoenix using small, 30-passengcr aircraft. This Regional Service at Palomar increased to
an annual peak of78,5l9 passengers in 2000. Beginning in 2008, airlines began to discontinue the use
of this type of aircraft. The newer regional aircraft cannot operate at Palomar due to its short runway
length, and Region~! Service ended in 2015.
With continued interest of residents and stakeholders, the MPU contemplated future Regional Service at
Palomar. However, there arc several factors that limit Regional Service, such as the nmway length,
design standards, pavement strength, aircraft parking areas, and passenger terminal capacity. The
runway length and design standards are the most critical. Palomar has a single 4,897-foot nmway.
Within the contiguous United States, there are no airports with runways less than 5,000 feet that have
commercial air service.
Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger aircraft could provide additional revenues to
the Airport Enterprise Fund (AEF) from commercial landing fees, parking, and foci flowagc; restaurant
and rcn1al car concessions; and vehicle parking. Also, the FAA currently allocates $150,000 in Airport
Improvement Program Entitlement grant funding 10 Palomar annually, which would increase to a
minimum of$! million, if Palomar were to have over 10,000 commercial passengers per year, using
small, passenger aircraft. The f AA also allows commercial service airports to collect a Passenger
Facility Charge (Pl'C) from airlines to help pay for needed capital improvements. PFCs could generate
up to $2 million in addi1ional revenue annually.
In addition to more and closer air travel options, Regional Service at Palomar using small, regional, 30
to 70 passenger aircraft also has po1cntial economic benefits 10 employees, businesses, and
municipalities in Nor1h Counly and the region. The McClellan-Palomar Airport Economic Impact
Analysis Report determined that, without Regional Service using small, regional, 30 to 70 passenger
aircra!l, Palomar currently supports 2,590 johs and generates $461 million in economic activity and $72
million in tax revenue. Without further development, Palomar would support an estimated 3,380 jobs
and generate $596 million in economic activity and $94 million in tax revenues in 2036. The MPU
presented today forccastcd the ability of the airport to accommodate up 10 575,000 passengers annually,
on small, regional, JO to 70 passenger aircraft. In this scenario, Palomar's economic activity would
almost double. with an estimated 6,720 jobs and generale $1.0 billion in annual economic activity and
$160 million in annual tax revenues.
DECEMBER 08, 2021 5
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 346 of 383
ACTION:
ON MOTION of Supervisor Desmond, seconded by Supervisor Lawson-Remer, lhc Board of
Supervisors took the following actions:
I. Certified and adopled the McClellan-Palomar Airport Mas1er Plan Update Environmental
Documents 1oge1her with its ac!ion to adopt 1he MPU (Ref. Board Letter Recommendation 3):
Certified lhal lhe F'in.il Program Environmental lmpac1 Report (PElR), SCH No.2016021 I 05 has
been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines, that the F'inal PF,IR was presented to the Board, 1ha1 the Board reviewed and considered
lhc information comaincd therein, and that the Final PEIR rcflecls the independent judgment and
analysis of 1he Board; AND
A. Adopted the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmenlal Effeels pursuant to
Seclion 15091 ofCEQA Guidelines (Altachment C); AND
B. Adopted the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record (Attachment E); AND
C. Adopted the dccision and explanation regarding recirculation of draft PEIR (Attachment F);
AND
D. Adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with
Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines (Anachment G).
2. Selected the airport design standard, including a poten1ial runway extension (Ref. Board Letter
Reeommcnda1ion 1 ):
Option B. B-11 Enhanced Facility Now and Condition D-111 Modified Standards Compliance in the
Future: Same as Option A, and adding future D-lll design standards conditioned on addressing the
Conditional Use Permit and Runway Protection Zone requirements and returning to the Board to
consider D-111 design standards and a runway extension option AND
Runway Extension of200 feet that allows a variance ofup to 10% if needed.
3. Selected the McClellan-Palomar Airport Mas1cr Plan Update (Ref. Board Letter Recommendalion 2):
Option A. Adopted lhe McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update based on the option
selected under Board Lener Recommendation I related to airport design standard, including a
potential runway extension, together with the actions in 11cm 1 above.
4. Provided direction on a sustainability plan by selecting (Ref. Board Let1cr Recommendation 4):
Option B. Directed staff to prepare a County Airports System Sustainability Plan with a priority on
implementing sustainability measures for McClellan-Palomar Airport
5. Directed the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a lencr to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and work with the local congressional delegation that requests the following:
a. Establishment of quiet hours
b. If quiet hours arc unable to be acquired, eslablish a fee structure that increases foes for aircraft
flying during quite hours
A YES: Vargas, Anderson, Lawson-Remer, Fletcher, Desmond
DECEMBER 08, 2021 6
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 347 of 383
State of California)
County of San Diego)§
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, tmc and correct copy of the Original entered in the Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors.
ANORF,W POTTER
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Signed
by Andrew Potter
DECEMBER 08, 2021 7
Western-Pacific Region Los Angeles Airports District Office 777 S. Aviation Blvd., Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245
July 10, 2024 Jamie Abbott
Director of Airports
County of San Diego 1960 Joe Crosson Drive El Cajon, CA 92020-1236
Dear Mr. Abbott,
RE: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Conditional Approval for McClellan–Palomar Airport (CRQ) Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Drawing Set; Airspace Case Study No. 2021-AWP-203-NRA
The Los Angeles Airports District Office (LAX-ADO) completed the final review of the McClellan–Palomar Airport updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set. Accordingly, a Conditional Approval is issued for the subject ALP, dated July 10, 2024. A signed copy of the approved ALP is enclosed.
An aeronautical study, Airspace Case Study No. 2021-AWP-203-NRA was conducted on the proposed development depicted on the ALP. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and
with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.
In making this determination, the FAA considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects
it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that
existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. The FAA has only limited means to prevent the construction of structures near an airport.
The airport sponsor has the primary responsibility to protect the airport environs through
such means as local zoning ordinances, property acquisition, avigation easements, letters of agreement, or other means. The most notable changes made to this ALP submittal can be found in the letter dated July
10, 2024, as part of the ALP submittal.
This ALP approval is conditioned on the acknowledgment that any development on airport property requiring Federal environmental approval must receive such written approval from
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 348 of 383
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
the FAA prior to the commencement of the subject development. This ALP approval is also conditioned on acceptance of the plan under local land use laws. We encourage appropriate
agencies to adopt land use and height-restrictive zoning based on the plan.
Approval of the plan does not indicate that the United States will participate in the cost of any development proposed. Airport Improvement Program funding requires evidence of eligibility and justification at the time a funding request is ripe for consideration. When
construction of any proposed structure or development indicated on the plan is undertaken,
such construction requires a normal 45-day advance notification to the FAA for review in accordance with applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., Parts 77, 157, 152, etc.). More notice is generally beneficial to ensure that all statutory, regulatory, technical, and operational issues can be addressed in a timely manner.
Please attach this letter to the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan and retain it for your records. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact Justin Guan of my staff at (424) 405-7276 or via email at Justin.Guan@faa.gov.
Sincerely,
Cathryn G. Cason Manager Los Angeles Airports District Office
Enclosure: FAA Conditionally Approved ALP
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 349 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike StrongCc:Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson
Subject:Fwd: [Document Released] County of San Diego public records request #24-1621 - Palomar Airport ALPDate:Wednesday, August 21, 2024 10:50:28 AM
Hello Mike,You might find some of this interesting reading. Each document is available by clicking on the provided link.
The Public Records Request was for all communications between the County of San Diego and the FAA regarding FAA approval of the Ultimate ALP(D-III with new 900 foot longer runway - not yet approved by the BOS)
The FAA asked the County to “resolve the CUP issue with City of Carlsbad” multiple times through the approval process. The County’s responses areincluded.
The dropbox contents that are mentioned don’t appear to have been included. I’ve re-requested those from the County this morning.That list is:
Palomar ALPSigned ALP SheetALP Review ChecklistExhibit A ChecklistFAA Comment Matrix
Thank you.Vickey Syage
Begin forwarded message:
From: Public Records Act Unit County of San Diego <messages@nextrequest.com>Subject: [Document Released] County of San Diego public records request #24-1621Date: August 7, 2024 at 10:48:14 AM PDTTo: vickey.syage@gmail.comReply-To: sandiegocountyca_24-1621-requester-notes@inbound.nextrequest.com
-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. --
County of San Diego Public Records
Documents have been released for record
request #24-1621 along with the following
message:
IT security information, such as user names and passwords have
been redacted from these documents.
2021-AWP-203-NRA Determination Letter - Attachment to Justin
Guan FAA Feb 28 2024 3.04PM email.pdf
CRQ ALP 2024 County Ltr FAA ALP Submittal Mar 31 2023.pdf
CRQ ALP Comment Matrix 1-10-2023 - Attachment to Justin Guan
FAA Jan 10 2023 11.44AM email.pdf
CRQ ALP Comment Matrix Mar 2023 - Attachment to County Ltr
FAA ALP Submittal Mar 31 2023.pdf
CRQ ALP Signature Page 2024-07-10.pdf
Fw_ ALP Update - Jul 15 2024 11.59AM.pdf
FW_ McClellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) ALP Submittal - Jamie Abbot
County Jun 7 2023 5.25PM email.pdf
Fw_ ALP Update - Jul 10 2024 2.34PM.pdf
FW_ McClellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) ALP Submittal - Justin Guan
FAA Feb 28 2024 3.04PM email.pdf
FW_ McClellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) ALP Submittal - Justin Guan
FAA Jan 10 2023 11.43AM email.pdf
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 350 of 383
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
View Request 24-1621
Questions about your request? Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at County of San Diego.
Technical support: See our help page
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
https://pra.sandiegocounty.gov/requests/24-1621
Document links are valid for one month. After September 7, you will need to sign in toview the document(s).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 351 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong; Jason Haber
Subject:Fwd: DRAFT Carlsbads"s Local Control: County Commitments to Cup in Master Plan, Court Judgment, CUP 172
Date:Friday, August 23, 2024 9:48:54 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: maryanneviney@dslextreme.com
Subject: DRAFT Carlsbads's Local Control: County Commitments to
Cup in Master Plan, Court Judgment, CUP 172Date: August 20, 2024 at 11:11:30 AM PDT
To: Syage Vickey <c4fa.legal@gmail.com>
Just some, what I think of as key points, that I had gathered, that could
be useful for you: Feel free to edit or add to.
County acknowledged in the 2021 approved Master Plan Update that it
must seek a Conditional Use Permit 172:
"...In an effort to comply with the Court’s order, whether applicable ornot, the County will seek an amendment to CUP-172 for any change inthe existing ARC as shown on an ALP from B-II to something greater
(i.e., B- III or higher). The County will also seek a use permit
amendment prior to seeking grant funds, awarding a contract, takingother action to implement facility improvements needed toimplement an ultimate ARC greater than B-II…”
- H-Master_Plan_Update_2021_(tracked_changes).pdf; Section 5.4.2.1:
Conditional Use Permit 172
Notes: non-authorized change in use
forseeable C-III / D-III ARC change with approved contractis the county implementing facility improvements to the airport facility
in order to support the proposed contract with AA?
Court finds that an amendment to CUP-172 by the City of Carlsbad isrequired:
“...Four, the Project required an amendment to CUP-172. The Projectchanges the designation of the airport. Planning CommissionResolution No. 1699 stated that "[t]he existing designation of the
airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall not
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 352 of 383
change unless an amendment to this CUP is approved by thePlanning Commission." (AR 43:7572.) Here, the County changed the
designation of the airport from B-II to D-III. (AR 41:7549.) Notably, the
County did not address this issue in its opposition and generally argues
that it was not required to obtain an amendment. (See Oppo., p. 12.) Atoral argument, the County argued that the proposed D-III designationwas encompassed within the General Aviation Basic Transport Standard,
which was operative at the time CUP-172 was approved. (AR 7:842,
36:6934.) However, it provided no evidence in the administrative recordto support this statement. Furthermore, the administrative record statedthat "[t]he airport currently meets all B-II design criteria...." (AR
36:6794.) If, as the County argued, the D-III designation was
encompassed within the prior standard, why did the PEIR explicitly state
that the Airport fell within the B-II design criteria? Notably, the PalomarAirport Advisory Committee failed to approve the Project with the D-III
designation. (AR40:7546.) Finally, the administrative record
contained evidence showing that the change from B-II to D-IIIwould allow larger aircraft to takeoff with more fuel. (AR 36:6789;see also AR 20:4602.) This evidences an intent to use the Airport in a
way that was not previously authorized…”
- MINUTE ORDER TIME: JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Gregory W
Pollack CLERK: Terry Abas, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL, DATE: 01/26/2021
Conditional Use Permit 172, Condition 11:
The existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic
Transport Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this CUP isapproved by the Planning commission.
- Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699; September 24, 1980
Requirements for a temporary injunction: IN PROGRESS
mav
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 353 of 383
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 354 of 383
From:sander1575To:Jason Haber; Mike StrongSubject:FW: What does INACTIVE status mean for the PART 139 CertificationDate:Friday, August 23, 2024 9:54:30 AMAttachments:PAAC Part 139 FAA Inactive Status CertAlert.pdf
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Shirley <sander1575@aol.com>Date: 8/10/24 8:21 AM (GMT-08:00)To: MaryAnne Viney <maryanneviney@dslextreme.com>, Hope Nelson <hopefromthehood@gmail.com>, Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com>, Suzie Thorley <suzie.thorley@sbcglobal.net>Subject: What does INACTIVE status mean for the PART 139 Certification
Good Morning All, Did a deep dive on what it means for Palomar Airport to be on inactive status with their Part 139, Certification. Found a sample of the type of CertAlert an Airport receives when being notified they are beingplaced on INACTIVE status (see attached). Would love to know when this was sent to Palomar Airport. Seems to me, this must be remedy before they can start commercial operation with American. The inactivestatus is updated every 30 days, so doesn't mean they aren't currently working to fix this. Don't want to give them a heads up, but this is why Peter Kirsh found this interesting. See below, Shirley
What is Part 139? – Part 139 Airport Certification
14 CFR Part 139 requires FAA to issue airport operating certificates to airports that:
Serve scheduled and unscheduled air carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats;Serve scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more than 9 seats but less than 31 seats; andThe FAA Administrator requires to have a certificate.
This Part does not apply to airports at which air carrier passenger operations are conducted only because the airport has been designated as an alternate airport.
Airport Operating Certificates serve to ensure safety in air transportation. To obtain a certificate, an airport must agree to certain operational and safety standards and provide for such things as firefighting andrescue equipment. These requirements vary depending on the size of the airport and the type of flights available. The regulation, however, does allow FAA to issue certain exemptions to airports that serve fewpassengers yearly and for which some requirements might create a financial hardship.
Basic Phases of a Part 139 Inspection
To ensure that airports with Airport Operating Certificates are meeting the requirements of Part 139, nearly 35 FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors conduct certification inspections. These inspections typicallyoccur yearly, but FAA can also make unannounced inspections. Certification inspections include the following steps:
Pre-inspection review of office airport files and airport certification manual.In-briefing with airport management. Organize inspection time schedule, meet with different airport personnel.Administrative inspection of airport files, paperwork, etc. Also includes updating the Airport Master Record (FAA Form 5010) and review of the Airport Certification Manual/Specifications (ACM/ACS),Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), airfield self-inspection forms, etc.Movement area inspection. Check the approach slopes of each runway end; inspect movement areas to find out condition of pavement, markings, lighting, signs, abutting shoulders, and safety areas; watchground vehicle operations; ensure the public is protected against inadvertent entry and jet or propeller blast; check for the presence of any wildlife; check the traffic and wind direction indicators.Aircraft rescue and fire fighting inspection. Conduct a timed-response drill; review aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel training records, including annual live-fire drill and documentation of basicemergency medical care training; check equipment and protective clothing for operation, condition, and availability.Fueling facilities inspection. Inspection of fuel farm and mobile fuelers; check airport files for documentation of their quarterly inspections of the fueling facility; review certification from each tenant fuelingagent about completion of fire safety training.Night inspection. Evaluate runway/taxiway and apron lighting and signage, pavement marking, airport beacon, wind cone, lighting, and obstruction lighting for compliance with Part 139 and the ACM/ACS. Anight inspection is conducted if air carrier operations are conducted or expected to be conducted at an airport at night or the airport has an instrument approach.Post inspection briefing with airport management. Discuss findings; issue Letter of Correction noting violations and/or discrepancies if any are found; agree on a reasonable date for correcting anyviolations, and give safety recommendations.
Compliance with Part 139
If FAA finds that an airport is not meeting its obligations, it often imposes an administrative action. It can also impose a financial penalty for each day the airport continues to violate a Part 139 requirement. Inextreme cases, FAA might revoke the airport's certificate or limit the areas of an airport where air carriers can land or takeoff. See FAA Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program
.
Part 139 Airport Certification Status List (ACSL)Note: ARFF Index and Airport Class may lag behind official publication charting cycles and is for planning purposes only.
ARFF Index and Class should be verified against current NOTAMs and current 5010 at adip.faa.gov.Coordinate with your Regional Airports Office to ensure your airport has the right airport classification in accordance with
Part 139.Data source: FAA Airport Data and Information PortalEffective date: June 13, 2024
CA AWP CRQ McClellan-Palomar Airprt is listed as INACTIVE!
Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airports and Airport Projects
With the expected growth in air transportation, we will need to make greater efforts and adopt new measures to continue improving aviation safety. The use of Safety Management Systems (SMS) at airports cancontribute to this effort by helping airports detect and correct safety problems before they result in aircraft accidents or incidents. We are introducing SMS to airports in several ways.
Previous Part 139 Requirements Revised
Part 139 Requirements Personnel provisions (§ 139.303)A recordkeeping system and new personnel training standards and clarification of use of a designee to comply with Part 139Paved and unpaved surfaces (§139.305 and .307)Clarification of requirement to repair pavement cracks Safety areas (§ 139.309)Clarification of safety area definition (see § 139.3)Marking, lighting and signs (§ 139.311)Clarification of requirementto mark pavement edges and new requirement for sign plan (see § 139.203(b)(13))Snow and ice control plan (§ 139.313)Clarification of requirement for determining need for plan and positioning of snow offmovement areas ARFF (§ 139.315, .317 and .319)New personnel training, fire extinguishing agent, and HAZMAT response standards; elimination of older ARFF vehicle exception; and clarification of Index criteria.Also, extends ARFF coverage to scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft. HAZMAT handling/storage (§ 139.321)Standards for air carrier fueling operations, and additional fuel fire safety and personneltraining standards Traffic/wind indicators (§ 139.323)New supplemental wind cone/segmented circle standards Airport emergency plan (§ 139.325)New requirement to plan for fuel storage fires, HAZMAT andsecurity incidents, alarm systems and water rescue situations Self-inspections (§ 139.327)New training requirements for inspection personnel Ground vehicle operations (§ 139.329)New training requirements forpedestrians and ground vehicles Obstructions (§ 139.331)Unchanged NAVAIDS (§ 139.333)Unchanged Public protection (§ 139.335)Unchanged Wildlife hazard management (§ 139.337)Clarification of wildlifehazards requiring action and new hazard assessment and management plan standards Airport condition reporting (§ 139.339)New notification standard Construction/unserviceable areas (§ 139.341)Unchanged
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Order 2150.3C - FAA Compliance andEnforcement Program w/ Changes 1-11
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 355 of 383
From:sander1575
To:Mike Strong; Jason Haber
Subject:FW: [External] FW: Re: PAAC Agenda items request for September 2024
Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 1:46:34 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image001.png
In preparation for the upcoming September PAAC meeting, I made a request to AirportManager John Otto for specific information regarding the FAA, Part 139, and explanation as
to why it was inactive. Please see below Mr. Otto's response.This may be information you wish to provide to Attorney Peter Kirsh.
Regards,Shirley Anderson
Carlsbad Representative PAAC
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "Otto, John" <John.Otto@sdcounty.ca.gov>Date: 8/30/24 12:26 PM (GMT-08:00)To: "Sander1575@aol.com" <sander1575@aol.com>Subject: FW: [External] FW: Re: PAAC Agenda items request for September 2024
Hi Shirley,
In the attempt to keep the agenda at a reasonable number of items, I have asked Yarida to not additem number 2 to the agenda. I hope you understand…However, here are the answers to your
question.
Palomar Airport was put in the inactive status sometime in late 2020 because we did not have acommercial airline servicing Palomar at the time and because of COVID-19. The FAA at the timewas trying to limit the exposure of their inspectors during the peak of COVID-19 outbreak. To give
you some insight on what the inactive status is or means is, the airport remains a Part 139 but insteadof getting inspect yearly, that yearly requirement can be move out to two years at the FAA’sdiscretion. With COVID this help limit the exposure of the FAA inspectors. All other aspects of thePart 139 remain the same and it is up to the airport to keep all aspects of the Part 139 current. The
FAA did perform a Part 139 inspection on March 9, 2022, and again on July 11 and 12, 2023 afterthings with COVID settled down.
Earlier this year I sent the FAA, American Airlines letter of intent to start service at Palomar Airportand at that time I requested that Palomar Airport be reinstated to an active status. Our next Part 139
inspection is due on Sept 3-5, 2024. Once that inspection is complete the FAA will make adetermination on when to move Palomar to the active status. At some point in time after that theFAA will update our Part 139 status to active on the website you mentioned.
The purchase of the new fire truck as you mentioned really does not have anything to do with thePart 139 status since we already meet the Part 139 standard with to two older fire trucks.
If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 356 of 383
From: Aguilar, Yadira <Yadira.Aguilar@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 11:33 AM
To: Otto, John <John.Otto@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Re: PAAC Agenda items request for September 2024
FYI
Thank you,
Yadira Aguilar
Admin Sec I | McClellan-Palomar Airport | County of San Diego
2192 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011
Phone: 760-966-3281 | Mail Stop N137
www.sdcountyairports.com
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 357 of 383
[i]
From: sander1575 <sander1575@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:01 PM
To: Aguilar, Yadira <Yadira.Aguilar@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: [External] FW: Re: PAAC Agenda items request for September 2024
Hi Yadira,
Following up on my items request for the agenda at the September PAAC.
Would appreciate an update from Jamie Abbott regarding Palomar Sustainability Plan.
Going through my notes it appears there should be a community meeting soon.
Thanks, Shirley
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Shirley <sander1575@aol.com>
Date: 8/25/24 9:07 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Aguilar, Yadira" <yadira.aguilar@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: PAAC Agenda items request for September 2024
Good Morning Yadira,
Thank you for your email. i do have a few items I would like to add to the
September PAAC meeting.
1. I have heard from the City of Carlsbad that there is new information regarding a
"roundtable" with the FAA. If we could have an update on this request from lastMarch, that would be great.
2. At the July, PAAC meeting there was a discussion regarding the FAA, PART
139, operating certificate at Palomar Airport. After the meeting I went on the
FAA site (Part 139, Airport Certification Status, June 13, 2024) to find that
Palomar Airport was classified as INACTIVE. Can we get a briefing as to how
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 358 of 383
long Palomar Airport has been inactive, and what is being done to cure this
status? Please explain what has been done to re-activate the status, such as
purchase of a new fire engine for the Airport. Would like to know when FAA
Airport Certification Safety Inspectors will be scheduled to conduct the
certifications inspections? The FAA website states this certification updates
every 28 days, but checking today the website still states June 13, 2024, and
CRQ is listed as inactive.
3. Also at the July PAAC meeting I asked the question, "what is the obligationwhen an Airport enters into a Grant Agreement with the FAA?" I was met with
an abrupt answer that basically, in perpetuity. After a brief google research, I
learned this was not accurate. Most FAA Grant Assurances last approximately
20 years, but can vary, depending on what is written in the agreement. So myquestions is a valid one. When was the last time the County enter into a Grant
Assurance with the FAA for Palomar Airport? It did state that some obligations
could be longer if the Grant was used to purchase property.
These are valid agenda items, based on transparency, to provide information to theAirport impacted community.
Regards,
Shirley Anderson
Vice Chair PAAC
Carlsbad Representative
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 359 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong; Jason HaberCc:hope nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson
Subject:Fwd: [Document Released] County of San Diego public records request #24-1621Date:Friday, August 30, 2024 5:40:34 PM
Hello Mike and Jason,
The County did not produce full documents between the FAA and the County regarding the FAA approval of the Ultimate ALP (D-III design). It wascaught when some of our folks were going through what was produced.I believe the request has now been fulfilled. I sent you both the first set. Here are the missing files.
Have a nice Labor Day weekend.Best,Vickey Syage
Begin forwarded message:
From: Public Records Act Unit County of San Diego <messages@nextrequest.com>Subject: [Document Released] County of San Diego public records request #24-1621Date: August 30, 2024 at 4:13:23 PM PDTTo: vickey.syage@gmail.comReply-To: sandiegocountyca_24-1621-requester-notes@inbound.nextrequest.com
-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. --
County of San Diego Public Records
Documents have been released for record
request #24-1621 along with the following
message:
Hello,
This is in response to your California Public Records Act request,
which the County of San Diego received on August 21, 2024 and
which states:
Hello Again, Although this record request has been closed, it’s
incomplete. In the documents that were provided, there are
references to a County-FAA dropbox where the County and FAA
updated documents to/from each other. Comments about the
process, questions from the FAA, and responses from the County
were included in these documents. The documents referenced by
the FAA are: Palomar ALP Signed ALP sheet ALP Review
Checklist Exhibit A Checklist FAA Comment Matrix The dropbox
documents were not provided. Could you please provide those
too? Thank you. Vickey Syage
The County of San Diego has gathered documents which may be
responsive to your request. Please note that 72 hours after your
request is concluded, your request and any released records will
become publicly available.
Thank you,
Department of Public Works - Transportation
County of San Diego
CRQ ALP Comment Matrix Mar 2022.pdf
CRQ SOP 2.00 ALP Review Checklist (same for Oct 22 and Mar
23).pdf
CRQ ALP 2022.10.18.pdf
Signature Page - Sheet 5.pdf
CRQ ALP Signature Page.pdf
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 360 of 383
•
•
•
•
•
CRQ ALP Set 2023-02-28.pdf
Exhibit A checklist (same for Oct 22 and Mar 23).pdf
View Request 24-1621
Questions about your request? Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at County of San Diego.
Technical support: See our help page
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
https://pra.sandiegocounty.gov/requests/24-1621
Document links are valid for one month. After September 30, you will need to sign in to
view the document(s).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 361 of 383
•
•
IRl
Chatten-Brown Law Group, APC
Kathryn Pettit | Associate
325 W. Washington Street, Suite 2193
San Diego, CA 92103
kmp@chattenbrownlawgroup.com
Phone: (619) 393-1440
September 19, 2024
Via email to the Honorable Keith Blackburn
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
Keith Blackburn (keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov)
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: McClellan-Palomar Airport; Proposed Revisions to the City’s Code and
General Plan
To the Honorable Keith Blackburn:
Our firm represents Citizens for a Friendly Airport (“C4FA”). On behalf of C4FA, we provide
the following comments regarding the County of San Diego’s (“County”) April 23, 2024 letter to
the City of Carlsbad (“City”), July 8, 2024 letter to the City, and ongoing activities regarding the
operation and designation of the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
I. Defining “Expansion” and Determining whether a CUP Amendment is Required
Our firm sent a letter, dated January 2, 2024, on behalf of C4FA to the City. Our letter stated that
“amendment of CUP-172 is required for any extension of the Airport runway because a runway
extension was ‘specifically omitted’ from the facilities allowed by right at Table I of CUP-172,”
and that “this interpretation is consistent with the definition of ‘airport expansion’ in Public
Utilities Code section 21664.5.”
The County responded with the assertion that this “argument was reviewed and rejected in the
January 26, 2021 ruling,” and that the Court agreed “‘with the County’s interpretation of the
term “expansion” and that no amendment [of CUP-172] was required on the basis of the
proposed changes set forth.’” In the County’s view, Table 1 instead provides a non-exhaustive
list of uses permitted without further discretionary review.
However, CUP-172 Condition 8 provides that “[t]he permitted uses for Palomar Airport are
limited to those as outlined in Table 1, dated September 24, 1980, and incorporated herein by
reference. Approval of any uses not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or expansion of the
airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.” (emphasis
added.) Runway extension is not specifically listed in Table 1, so a CUP amendment would be
required for this reason alone.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 362 of 383
r (3 CHATTEN-BROWN V"'~ LAW GROUP
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 2
Furthermore, as stated in Condition 8, expansion of the airport facility always requires a CUP
amendment. Thus, so long as the City of Carlsbad’s (“City”) General Plan and municipal code
are amended to define “expansion” as inclusive of alterations and extensions to runways,
Condition 8 would also require CUP amendment on these grounds.
The County also notes that C4FA’s intended definition of expansion was rejected by the Court,
which agreed with the County and held that no amendment would be required to extend the
runway. However, the Court only rejected the premise that the extension would require an
amendment under the City’s current definition of expansion; the Court did not preclude the City
from adopting a new definition that would include a runway extension. (Citizens for a Friendly
Airport v. County of San Diego, Minute Order (Jan. 26, 2021) Case No. 37-2018-00057624-CU-
TT-CTL (hereinafter C4FA v. Cnty. of San Diego).)
In further support of its position, the County notes that Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) section
21664.5 only applies to state-issued airport operating permits, so amending the City’s Municipal
Code to be compliant with state law is unnecessary, as the state law in question is inapplicable to
the McClellan-Palomar Airport. As a preliminary matter, we were unable to locate a provision
within the PUC that limits section 21664.5 to state-issued airport operating permits. Regardless,
the City is not precluded from adopting a more inclusive definition of expansion merely because
the law does not require the City to do so; the City’s new definition can still be consistent with
state law, even if that consistency is not mandated. Thus, even if PUC section 21664.5 is not
directly applicable to the McClellan-Palomar Airport, the City may certainly adopt a similar
definition within its own codes, which then would be applicable to the airport.
The County also relies heavily on the May 3, 1993 letter from the then City Attorney, which
concluded that the acquisition of property for a “clear zone” was not an expansion unless it
involved (i) redesignation or rezoning or (ii) the completion of structures or buildings. This letter
served as “a basis” for the Court’s agreement with the County’s definition of expansion, and the
County is quick to note that this ruling was final. However, though this letter may have served as
a basis for the Court’s conclusion, the 1993 letter itself cannot be construed as binding upon the
current City Attorney or City Council. The ruling was final; the circumstances upon which the
ruling was based are not. Though the letter—written over thirty years ago—provided support for
the Court’s conclusion, the current City officers can adopt or amend ordinances as needed to
modernize the City’s code and general plan. This letter does not bind the City to a limited
definition of expansion moving forward.
II. Applicability of the City’s Code and General Plan to the County
The County also argues that, if the City amends its General Plan or zoning code, the changes
would not be applicable to the County by virtue of its “vested rights” and its “immunity” from
subsequently enacted ordinances.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 363 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 3
With respect to immunity from subsequently enacted ordinances, the County asserts that such
changes could not be applied to the County because the “Ruling did not find that the waiver
extends to subsequently enacted City ordinances.” This statement misconstrues the language of
the court’s order, as the court draws no distinction between immunity for previously and
subsequently enacted ordinances. The ruling explicitly states that “the County waived its
immunities,” with no caveats mentioned. (C4FA v. Cnty. of San Diego, supra at *3.) The
“County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its immunities with respect to the airport.”
(Id.) There is no support for the idea that the court’s holding left undecided whether the waiver
extends to subsequently enacted ordinances and, therefore, there is no support for the idea that
the County would not be subject to compliance with the City’s amended General Plan and
zoning code.
In its letter to the City, the County also vaguely asserts its “vested rights.” There is generally no
vested right to expand or enlarge a nonconforming use. (Sabek, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (1987)
190 Cal.App.3d 163, 167; Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, n.
4.) The McClellan-Palomar Airport is subject to a Conditional Use Permit; the issuance of CUP-
172 does not vest any rights for further expansion or enlargement. Such rights must come from
an amendment to the CUP where they do not exist in the CUP itself. Thus, the County does not
have a “vested right” to anything not expressly provided for in the CUP.
As discussed in Part I, the County would be subject to the City’s updated definition of
“expansion” once the City makes this change within its general plan and zoning code. This
change would not impose additional restrictions on the County, but clarify the scope of the
authority already granted under the CUP. Thus, “vested rights” would not allow the County to
extend the runway without an amendment to the CUP.
As an additional note, the City is free to impose new conditions or alter existing conditions in the
CUP whenever an amendment to the CUP is sought, as well as in a limited number of other
situations, such as where the “conditional use permit is being or has recently been exercised
contrary to any of the terms or conditions of approval.” (Carlsbad Muni. Code §§ 21.54.125(D),
21.42.120(F)(3).) This further indicates that even “vested rights” can be modified when the
circumstances so require it.
The County also draws attention to FAA Grant Assurance 5, which provides that the County
“may ‘not take or permit any action which would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and
powers [necessary to comply with its obligations as airport sponsor] . . . and will act promptly to
acquire, extinguish or modify any outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would
interfere with such performance.’” As stated above, there is no right—vested or otherwise—to
expand the airport beyond the extent provided for in the CUP.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 364 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 4
III. The County Has Sought Out Expansion of the Airport
The County asserts in its letter that it “has no authority over the quantity, type, or flight track of
any aircraft arriving or departing from the Airport, which are under FAA jurisdiction.”
Yet, the County is deep into contract negotiations with American Airlines (“AA”) to add the
airline as a route provider at McClellan-Palomar Airport subject to a two-year lease. Though the
County does not yet appear to have signed or finalized the contract, the County has publicly
announced that AA flights will begin in February 2025, and AA has already begun to offer these
flights for purchase. Our client has informed us that the County has stated its intent to waive fees
for AA for the first year of the two-year lease, likely to ensure that the contract is finalized. AA
will utilize a much larger type of aircraft than is typical of others that fly from McClellan-
Palomar: the Embraer 175.1 The County does have some level of authority over the “type . . of
any aircraft arriving or departing from the airport,” as it has taken it upon itself to allow, and
even try to incentivize, AA’s much larger planes to use the airport.
As the Superior Court found, and as discussed in Section IV, the County must first obtain a CUP
amendment from the City.
IV. The County has Unlawfully Initiated the Expansion of its Operations at McClellan-
Palomar
A. The County is Precluded from Taking Unilateral Action to Change the Airport’s
Designation
In C4FA v. County of San Diego, the Court made it clear that the County was not to change the
designation of the McClellan-Palomar Airport without an approved amendment to the CUP:
[T]he Project required an amendment to CUP-172. The project changes the
designation of the airport. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699 stated that
‘[t]he existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport
Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this CUP is approved by the
Planning Commission.’ Here, the County changed the designation of the airport
from B-II to D-III . . . the administrative record contained evidence showing that
the change from B-II to D-III would allow larger aircraft to takeoff with more
1 The Embraer 175 is a C-III designated aircraft. “As defined in FAA Advisory Circular
150/5300-13A, runway design standards for C-III and D-III aircraft are identical.” (Master Plan
Update, p. 5-5-45.)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 365 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 5
fuel. This evidences an intent to use the Airport in a way that was not
previously authorized.2
The Court expressly held that a change to the designation of the Airport would require an
amendment to the CUP, and that a change in designation without the requisite amendment would
result in a use that was not previously authorized.
This same requirement is echoed in the County’s Project Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”)
and in its filings in the litigation. The County noted: “In regards to Conditional Use Permit 172
from the City of Carlsbad, the Project EIR states: ‘...the County will seek an amendment to CUP-
172 for any change in ARC [Airport Reference Code] beyond the existing B-II designation in
the ALP [Airport Layout Plan] or prior to taking action to implement facility improvements
for an ARC greater than B-II.’”3
The same language is also reiterated in the County’s Master Plan Update: “the County will seek
an amendment to CUP-172 for any change in the existing ARC as shown on an ALP from B-II to
something greater (i.e., B-III or higher). The County will also seek a use permit amendment
prior to seeking grant funds, awarding a contract, or taking other action to implement facility
improvements needed to implement an ultimate ARC greater than B-II.” (Master Plan
Update, p. 5-5 (emphasis added).)
The requirement is absolutely clear: the County must request from the City an amendment to
CUP-172 prior to changing the designation, undertaking improvements necessary to facilitate the
change in designation, or seeking grant funds or awarding contracts based on the potential
change in designation. Initiating the change without the amendment would result in a use
unauthorized by the CUP.
However, the County has acted in contradiction with this requirement numerous times, as
discussed in Section IV.B, below.
B. The County has Unlawfully Initiated a Change in Designation from B-II to D-III
In various communications between the County and the FAA, the FAA flags that the project
scenario suggested by the County meets—and in fact exceeds—the design standard requirements
for a B-II designated airport: For example, the FAA writes, “[t]he Future Scenario’s RDC is a B
II-5000/B II-4000 designation that meets the Runway Safety Area (RSA) design standards for
both runway ends” and asks the County to “[p]rovide justification for EMAS on the west end of
2 C4FA v. County of San Diego, supra at *3 (emphasis added).
3 Respondent and Defendant County of San Diego’s Amended Final Return to Peremptory Writ
of Mandate (Apr. 14, 2022) Case No. 37-2018-00057624-CU-TT-CTL (emphasis added).
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 366 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 6
the runway under Future Scenario if RSA design standards are met under the B II-5000/B II-
4000 designation.” (FAA, ALP 7460 No Objection Letter (Feb. 28, 2024).) The runway length is
not the only design feature that exceeds B-II requirements: the FAA also flags that the runway
width and taxiway design also “exceed[] design standards based on the B-II designation.” (CRQ
ALP Comment Matrix, Mar. 2023.) Evidently, the Future Scenario submitted by the County
consistently proposes improvements that are unnecessary for McClellan-Palomar’s current
designation.
The FAA further notes that it will not fund projects that exceed the design standards for the
Airport’s current designation, including the aforementioned improvements to the runway’s
width, EMAS, and taxiways: “‘FAA policy is that if the project meets the FAA standards, then
the public need has been fully met. Therefore, a project that is designed or built to a more
rigorous standard is considered to exceed FAA standards. Except in limited circumstances . . .
the ADO must not fund work exceeding FAA standards with AIP.’” (FAA, ALP 7460 No
Objection Letter (Feb. 28, 2024).) Accordingly, the County will not receive FAA funding—
beyond the funding needed to comply with its current B-II designation—for adding the EMAS,
widening the runway, or improving the taxiway
Yet, in its response to the FAA, the County states that it will pay for improvements that result in
a runway width wider than required for a B-II designation. (CRQ ALP Comment Matrix, Mar.
2023.) This improvement would exceed minimum design standards, unless the County is already
using the ALP to plan for a higher designation. The County’s willingness to solely fund
improvements that exceed the required design standards indicates “an intent to use the Airport in
a way that was not previously authorized,” to use language from C4FA v. Cnty. Of San Diego,
supra at *3. Moreover, the County’s willingness to fund these presently unnecessary
improvements clearly contradicts the Master Plan Update, which asserts that the county will seek
a CUP amendment prior to “taking other action to implement facility improvements needed to
implement an ultimate ARC greater than B-II.” (Master Plan Update, p. 5-5.) The County is
already taking action (i.e., promising funding and including widened runways in its ALP) that is
only necessary for designations higher than B-II, yet no CUP amendment has been sought or
obtained.
In fact, the County has been working with the FAA to obtain D-III designation status for months,
as confirmed by a February 28th email from an FAA Planner: “As you continue to work with
ATO on getting an LOA [Letter of Agreement] for D-III operations and resolve the
Conditional Use Permit issue with the City of Carlsbad . . . ” (Email from Justin Guan, FAA
Planner, Feb. 28, 2024 (emphasis added).) In emails exchanged with the FAA, the County’s
Director of Airports confirms that as of July 10, 2024, the County was still “in the process of
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 367 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 7
obtaining an LOA from the ATO for C-III or greater operations at Palomar.”4 (Email from Jamie
Abbott, July 10, 2024.) The County has been working to obtain the D-III designation for
months, including by proposing physical improvements to the airport, in contravention of the
Master Plan Update’s clear statement that the County would not take action to implement facility
improvements for a higher designation without first seeking a CUP amendment.
Furthermore, the ALP must conform to the Master Plan, as the County has identified the ALP as
a “product of [the] Master Plan; rather than a component of [the] Master Plan.” (County of San
Diego Presentation to the Board of Supervisors, Item #6, Dec. 8, 2021.) This means the ALP
cannot preemptively make changes to the Airport to prepare for a D-III designation, because the
Master Plan itself does not provide the authority for the designation change. Rather, the Master
Plan is clear: the County must first seek an amendment to the CUP.
Even the County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) has provided express conditions for the County
before the Board would be willing to consider the D-III standard. The Board selected Option B5
for the airport design standard, which is the “same as Option A, and adding future D-III design
standards conditioned on addressing the Conditional Use Permit and Runway Protection
Zone requirements and returning to the Board to consider D-III design standards and a
runway extension option AND Runway Extension of 200 feet that allows a variance of up to
10% if needed.” (County of San Diego Board of Supervisors, Minute Order No. 6 (Dec. 8, 2021)
(emphasis added).) These conditions have yet to be met, so the Board cannot formally consider
the D-III design standard. Yet, the County has attempted to obtain approvals for the D-III
designation from the FAA and make improvements to the Airport that would only be necessary
for a designation of C-III or higher. The County must obtain both an amendment to the CUP and
approval from the Board, though has declined to fulfill either obligation while still taking clear
steps towards the designation change. The County cannot ignore the substantive requirements for
changing the Airport’s designation, and similarly, cannot later point to the unnecessary
improvements made in the meantime to support their argument that the change should be
approved.
Moreover, the County is actively seeking and encouraging the change in designation to a D-III,
effectively welcoming the FAA to send C-III and D-III jets to McClellan-Palomar. The Embraer
175—the aircraft that AA will operate to and from Palomar—is a C-III designated aircraft. “As
defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, runway design standards for C-III and D-III
aircraft are identical.” (Master Plan Update, p. 5-5-45.) Accordingly, the fact that the Embraer
4 Note that “For the purposes of design, the FAA dimension standards for C-III and D-III
airfields are ‘the same.’” (Master Plan Update, p. ES-3.)
5 Option A provides for a “B-II Enhanced Facility.” Option B provides for a “B-II Enhanced
Facility Now and Condition D-III Modified Standards Compliance in the Future.” (County of
San Diego Board of Supervisors, Minute Order No. 6 (Dec. 8, 2021).)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 368 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 8
175 is a C-III designated aircraft will not reduce the requirements for runway design standards;
rather, runway design standards would need to accommodate both C-III and D-III jets. The
County cannot assert that it has no control over the type of planes using its facilities when the
County has clearly and repetitively indicated to the FAA that it wished to expand operations and
has invited AA’s larger planes to operate there. The change in designation is not merely for
“safety,” because the County would not already be operating with a D-III Critical Aircraft6 and
inviting C-III aircraft if doing so was in clear contravention of safety requirements. The County
cannot enter contracts that encourage the arrival of larger aircraft and then rely on that contract
as a basis for procuring a formal change to a D-III designation, especially where an amendment
to the CUP is required before any such change could be obtained.
Before the designation can be changed, the County must obtain approval for an amendment to
CUP-172. The County cannot circumnavigate the substantive and procedural requirements for
changing the Airport’s designation, and certainly cannot do so under the guise of “safety”
purposes, when inviting ever-larger planes to operate at the Airport’s facilities. Continuing to
take action to initiate this change in designation is in contravention of the Master Plan Update,
the Court’s Ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego, and the County’s PEIR.
VII. Conclusion
We encourage the City to call on the County to explain how its correspondence with the FAA
and actions in relation to the AA contract comply with the Superior Courts ruling and Board of
Supervisors’ direction.
The County must obtain a CUP amendment before initiating a change to the Airport’s current
designation of B-II. The County has not yet attempted to do so, though has generally encouraged
the change in designation by pursuing a contract with AA for increased service from C-III jets—
for which the FAA’s runway design standards are identical to those for D-III jets—and seeking
FAA approval for improvements in the ALP that would only be necessary for an airport
designated above B-II. Such efforts alone will not support the designation change: the County
must obtain the CUP amendment.
Sincerely,
6 McClellan-Palomar’s Critical Aircraft (i.e., the aircraft in highest demand at an airport that has
at least 500 annual operations at that airport) is the Gulfstream 500/600 series business jet, which
is a D-III categorized jet. (County of San Diego Board of Supervisors, Land Use Agenda Item 6
(Dec. 8, 2021), at 10.)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 369 of 383
Blackburn
September 19, 2024
Page 9
Kathryn Pettit
Josh Chatten-Brown
Isabella Coye
cc:
Carolyn Luna, City Council Member (carolyn.luna@carlsbadca.gov)
Teresa Acosta, City Council Member (teresa.acosta@carlsbadca.gov)
Priya Bhat-Patel, City Council Member (priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov)
Melanie Burkholder, City Council Member (melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca.gov)
Scott Chadwick, City Manager (scott.chadwick@carlsbadca.gov)
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney (attorney@carlsbadca.gov)
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director (jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov)
Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development (mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov)
Terra Lawson-Remer, County Board of Supervisors (Terra.Lawson-Remer@sdcounty.ca.gov)
Nora Vargas, County Board of Supervisors (nora.vargas@sdcounty.ca.gov)
Joel Anderson, County Board of Supervisors (joel.anderson@sdcounty.ca.gov)
Monica Montgomery Steppe, County Board of Supervisors
(Monica.MontgomerySteppe@sdcounty.ca.gov)
Jim Desmond, County Board of Supervisors (jim.desmond@sdcounty.ca.gov)
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 370 of 383
From:Vickey Syage
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Shirley Anderson; Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney
Subject:County F-44 Changes for AA
Date:Thursday, September 26, 2024 9:06:59 AM
Attachments:1991-07-02; City Council; 11232; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY F-44- MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT F44.pdf
Hi Mike,
Shirley found this 1991 document on the City’s website. It was not filed/noted/linked to anything related to Palomar
Airport.
The County has come to the City of Carlsbad for input for changes to the F-44 policy.
Thought you should have a copy if you don’t already have one.
Thanks.
Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 371 of 383
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 372 of 383
rl.l C:
0 •r-1 .µ co
(.)
•r-1 ~ ·r-1
"O 0 a
..c: ,!.J
•r-1 :,:
>,
(.)
..-1 ,-i
0 ~
'O
(1)
rl.l ·r-1 > (I)
1--1
(I) ..c:: .µ
,..c:;
,!.J
•,-I :,:
,!.J p
(1) s (1)
(I)
H oO • .,,,....,.
(I)
Hr-i ·r-1 ..-1
(1) co ,..c:; .µ .µ (l)
"Cl "O (I) H .µ 0
Ci:14-;
(.) •r-1 (/J "O (l) p .µ
•r-1 ;:l
C: ..-i•r-l •r-1 s CJ C: (l) :::J (l) 0 rl.l u'-"
,-J
Ci\ -N -r--z
0 .:: 0 ct
...I
0 z :::,
0 0
AB# /4 cJ. .J ,;z,.
MTG. lk/r/
DEPT. __ R=E=S_
Cl.OF CARLSBAD -AGEN BILL
TITLE:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY F-44 -McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT.HD~
CITY ATT
CITY MG .
Review and comment on the revised Board of Supervisors Policy F-44 as outlined in Exhibit 1 .
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Board of Supervisors Policy F-44 was recently reviewed by County staff on a routine sunset
clause provision. The existing Policy F-44 delineates limits placed upon the airport regarding future
expansion and airport noise. The County staff was asked to revise Policy F-44 to also identify the
role of the airport. It is felt by the County that the revised policy is a more positive way to present
the functions of the airport (Exhibit 2).
Carlsbad staff reviewed the proposed revised policy and recommended several changes and
additions, which are shown in bold type, in parenthesis on Exhibit 3. City staff also questioned the
deletion of the policy statement limiting the maximum gross weight at 60,000 pounds for aircraft.
The County staff incorporated all Carlsbad's recommendations, plus reinstated the 60,000-pound
aircraft limitation into the policy's background statement.
The following abbreviated new policy statements replace the former policy statement #1 that an
" ... application will not be made for a full Airport Operating Certificate:"
• McClellan-Palomar Airport will provide air transportation for residents of North San Diego
County and facilitate general aviation activities.
• Commuter airline operations are limited to aircraft having 30, or fewer, seats. (Full airport
operating certificates are issued for aircraft having 31, or more, seats only.)
The remaining abbreviated new policies reflect an updating of former policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7:
• The airport will operate with one runway at its current length.
• The airport will operate in accordance with F.A.A. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program and,
in addition, recognize the City of Carlsbad's Noise Policy #17.
• The County will monitor aircraft noise and pilot compliance, and institute procedures to
mitigate single event noises.
• The airport manager will produce, distribute and promote a detailed noise abatement
program for the airport on an annual basis, and request pilot compliance with the program.
Finally, the County included recognition of SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission Plan as the
last new policy statement:
• SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission Plan will be recognized.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 373 of 383
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA Bill NO. ,// ~ .1 h ;;,l
The Palomar Advisory Committee favorably endorsed the revisions at its April 18, 1991 meeting.
The County is now seeking Carlsbad City Council's input on the revised Board Policy F-44. After
the City Council has reviewed this Policy, it will be docketed for Board action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None, except staff's time reviewing proposed revisions.
EXHIBITS:
1. Proposed revised Board Policy F-44 RJJ-19 APR-1991 Development of McClellan-Palomar
Airport.
2. Letter to Assistant City Manager from County of San Diego of 5-8-91 .
3. Proposed Board Policy F-44 with Carlsbad staff recommendations.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 374 of 383
BOARD POLICY F-44 (DRAFT) RJJ-19 APR-1991
DEVELOPMENT OF McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
EXHIBIT 1
Purpose
To provide a policy establishing guidelines for the future
operation and development of the aviation activity areas on
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Background
Several northern San Diego County cities surrounding
McClellan Palomar Airport have euprcsscd concern that the airport
will be e1epandcd ia a maancr which -would. lead to an iaercase ia
airport noise. Althou~h the airport docs not have an
incompatible land use as defined by the State Ploise Standards,
there is a need to control future growth and monitor the impact
of noise from the airport on surrounding communities.
McClellan-Palomar Airport has become the busiest County-owned
airport facility with more take-offs and landings than any other
civilian airport in the San Diego region. The development of
land adjacent to the airport has restricted the airport to a
single 4700 foot runway, which due to taxiway limitations can
support aircraft weighing less than 60,000 pounds, and a capacity
for 665 based aircraft. There is a need to insure that
residential and commercial land uses around the airport and
airport operations remain compatible.
Policy
It is the Policy of the Board of Supervisors that:
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
5.
6 .
7.
Application will not be made for a full Airport Operating
Certificate.
A second runway will not be constructed.
~he length of the existing runway will not be eutended.
~he airport will operate in compliance with State and
Federally mandated noise standards.
Airport noise levels will continue to be monitored including
Single Event Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL), in the airport
referral area as described in the Palomar Airport
Compreheasivc Land Use Plan.
Noise sensitive areas will be identified and included in the
airport's noise abatement program.
~he pilot education program for noise abatement procedures
will be updated annually.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 375 of 383
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7 .
8 .
The maximum gross weight aircraft will not eneeed 60,000
pounds.
The role of McClellan-Palomar Airport shall be to provide
air transportation for the residents of North San Diego
County and to facilitate General Aviation activities while
minimizing noise impacts on surrounding areas and
communities.
Scheduled commuter airline operations are limited to
aircraft having 30 or fewer seats. Commuter airline
aircraft shall meet the FAA Stage III noise criteria.
The airport will operate with one runway at its present
length. Due to land restrictions, a second runway could
not be added.
To insure the future safety and compatibility of the
existing runway length, the County will take a pro-active
role working with local agencies and the FAA to protect
the airspace around the airport from encroachment and to
promote compatible off airport land development.
The County will operate the airport in accordance with any
adopted FAA Part 150 noise compatibility program and in full
compliance with any State or Federal mandated noise
standards relating to the operation of a public airport.
The program will recognize the City of Carlsbad's Noise
Policy #17 and implement mitigation measures to minimize
noise impacts.
The County will monitor aircraft noise and verify the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours
within the airport influence area as described in the
Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as
monitor pilot compliance with any adopted FAA Part 150 Noise
Abatement Program. The County will also monitor Single
Event Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL) in the form of a noise
monitoring system and institute procedures to mitigate
single event noises.
The Airport Manager will produce, distribute and promote a
detailed noise abatement program for the airport. The
program will contain specific flight information and a chart
identifying noise sensitive areas. The noise abatement
program will be updated annually and distributed to pilots.
The Airport Manager will request pilot compliance with the
program.
This policy recognizes SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission
Plan.
Sunset Date
This policy will be reviewed for continuance by 12-31-95.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 376 of 383
NORMAN W. HICKEY
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1619) 531-5250
FAX: (6191 557-4060
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
May 8, 1991
Mr. Frank Mannen
Assistant City Manager
City of Carl shad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
BOARD POLICY F-44
Dear Frank:
EX HI BIT2\
V
Please be advised that County staff concurs with your requested changes to our
proposed revision of Board Policy F-44 regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The proposed revision with your changes was presented to the Palomar Advisory
Committee on April 18, 1991, for endorsement. The Committee voted unanimously
to favorably endorse the revision.
The statement that "the maximum aircraft gross weight will not exceed 60,000
pounds" was removed from the policy statements as it is a physical limit of the
airport. This limit has alternatively been added to the background statement.
No other changes were made to your proposal.
We would appreciate a prompt review by City staff, and City Council approval,
as soon as possible, in order that we may docket this for Board action at the
earliest possible date. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me
at 531-5274.
Sincerely,
~:EHAN .L~~Ut,,'V""'-
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment
cc: Department of Public Works (0332)
Printed on recycled paper
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 377 of 383
EXHIBIT 3
BOARD POLICY F-44 (DRAFT) RWS14-Dec-1990 Fri
DEVELOPMENT OF McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
Purpose
To provide a policy establishing guidelines for the ~ operation and development of~
aviation activity areas on McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Backciround
Several northern San Diego cities surrounding McClellan Palomar Airport have expressed
concern that the airport will be expanded in a manner which would load to an increase in airport
noise. Although the airport does not have an incompatible land use as defined by the State
Noiso Standards, there is a need to control future groYAh and monitor the impact of noise from
tho airport on surrounding communities.
McClellan-Palomar Airport has become the busiest County-owned airport facility with more take-
offs and landings than any other civilian airport in the San Diego region. The development of
land adjacent to the airport has restricted the airport to a single 4700 foot runway and a capacity
for 665 based aircraft There is a need to define the role of the airport and control aircraft noise.
There is also a need to insure that residential and commercial land uses around the airport and
airport operations remain compatible.
Policy
It ls the Policy of the Board of Supervisors that:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Application will not bo made for a full Airport Operating Certificate.
A second rumflay will not be constructed.
The length of the existing runway will not bo extended.
The airport will operate in compliance 11.1ith State and Federally mandated noise standards.
Aircraft noise levels will continue to bo monitored including Single Event Noiso Exposure
Levels (SENEL), in tho airport rofon:al area as described in tho Palomar Airport
Comprohonsivo Land Use Plan.
~loiso sensitive areas will o identl:flod and included in the airport's noise abatement
program.
Tho pilot education program for noise abatomont procedures 1.\!ill bo updated annually.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 378 of 383
8. Tho maximum gross weight aircraft will not oxceod 60,000 pounds. (why not retain
60,000 pounds?)
.1.:. The role of McClellan-Palomar Airoort shall be to provide air transoortation for the
residents of North San Diego County and to facilitate General Aviation activities. (while
minimizing noise impacts .on surrounding areas and communities.)
2. Scheduled commuter airline ooerations are limited to aircraft having 30 or fewer seats.
Commuter airline aircraft shall meet the FAA Stage 111 noise criteria.
3. The airoort will operate with one runway at its present length. Due to land restrictions1
a second runway could not be added.
4. To insure the future safety and compatibility of the existing runway length. the County will
take a pro-active role working with local agencies and the FAA to protect the airsoace
around the airoort from encroachment and to promote compatible off airport land
development.
5. The Countv will ooerate the airport in accordance with any adopted FAA Part 150 noise
comoatibility program and in full compliance with any State or Federal mandated noise
standards relating to the operation of a public airport. (The programs will recognize the
Clty of Carlsbad's Noise Policy #17 and implement mitigation measures to minimize
noise impacts.)
6. The County will monitor aircraft noise and verify the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL} noise contours within the airport influence area as described in the Palomar
Airport Comorehensive Land Use Plan as well as monitor pilot compliance with any
adooted FAA Part 150 Noise Abatement Proaram. The County will also @ursue a means
te monitor Sinale Event Noise Exoosure Levels (SENEL} in the form of a noise monitoring
system. (and institute procedures to mitigate single event noises.)
7. The Airport Manaaer will produce. distribute and promote a detailed noise abatement
program for the airport. The proaram will contain soecific flight information and a chart
identifying noise sensitive areas. This noise abatement program will be updated annually.
(and distributed to pilots.) The Airoort Manager will encourage (request) pilot
comoliance with the program.
(8. This policy recognizes SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission Plan.}
Sunset Date
This policy will be reviewed for continuance by 12-31-95.
Note: The bold type in parenthesis represents the Carlsbad staff's proposed changes.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 379 of 383
,........,__ ,
POLICY NO: _ __.1 ... 7 ___ _
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4. 1990 ~
PAGE 1 OF 2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTPATIVE POLICY
According to the Noise Control Act of 1973 Health & Safety Code 46000 et.seq., the Planning
and Zoning Law Government Code 65302(1) and CEQA Publlc Resoureaa Code 2100 et.seq.,
and until the City ot Carlsbad's Noise Element Is updated and amended a "Noise" St\.ldy shall
be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more dwel\ing
units within:
1. 2,000 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 5
2. 1,000 feet from the rlght-of•way of Highway 78
3. 500 feet from the railroad right-et-way
4. 500 feet 1rom the rignt•of-way of an existing or Mure Clroulation Element
Roadway aa identified on the Carlsbad General Plan
(. 5. Within the McClellan Palomar Airport Influence area as depicted on the ·) l Comprehenslve Land Use Plan for McCle!lan Palomar Airport.
This study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional and document the pr01ected noise
level at bulldout of Carl8bad's General Plan and mitigate the projected buildout noise level to
a maximum of eo dBA CNEL at:
1. Five feet Inside the proposed project's property line at six feet above finished
grade level, and
2. Above the first floor/story if usable exterior space is provided.
Interior noise leve\a shall be mitigated to 46 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the
residence are closed. If openings are provided, mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
If the acoustical study snows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to eo dBA CNEL
or less, the development should D.21 be approved without the followtns findings:
1, It shalt be the responslblllty of the developer of the project to prove to the satisfactlen
of tha Planning Commission or Design Review Board why It Is not feasible to eom~ly
with the eo dBA CNEL standard.
.2. No Interior CNEL shall exceed 45 dBA when oparilngs to the exterior are closed .
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 380 of 383
,.,......, 3. The Plannlng Commission or Design Review Board must find that there are ti:,ecifieally
Identified overriding social and economic considerations which warrant approval of the
development even though It does not meet the noise standard.
4. All purchasers of the Impacted property shall be notified In writing prior to purchase, and
by deed disclosure In writing, that the property they are purchasing Is noise Impacted
and does~ meet Carlsbad noise standards for resldentlal property.
s. If the acoustical study ehcwa that the exterior mltlgatad noise level exceeds es dBA
CNEL, th• development should Il.Q! be approved.
In addition. the following appropriate mitigations and/or conditions of approval shalt be
Incorporated Into projects:
1.
3.
For re§!dentlal projects near existing or Mura transeoa,ation c2cridors -Prior to
recordatlon of the first final tract/paroel map or issuance of building permits, whichever
ts first, the ownar shall prepara and record a notice that this property may be subject
to Impacts from the proposed er existing Transportation Corridor In a manner meeting
the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney ($ea Nolaa. Form #1 attached},
for ra§idantlal prol§S1i within 3 m!les of Mc;Clellan•Palomar Aircort as sbown on lbl
August 1988 County of San Qiego Noise Control Plan for Palomar Airport • Prior to the
recordation cf the first final tract/parcel map or the Issuance of residential building
permits. whichavar Is first1 the owner of record of the property within the boundaries of
this tentative tract/paroel map shalt ;:,rapare and record a notice (see Noise1 Form #2
attached) that thls property )s subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating
, from Patc,mar Airport In a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the
City Attomey.
The applicant shall p0st aircraft noise notification signs In all sales and/or rental offleea
assOelated with the new development. Toe number and locatlc:ms of said signs shall
be approved by the Plannlng Director. (See Noise, Form # 3 attached.}
For potenllil noise genaratlng projects • Prior to approval of any permits, an acouat!cal
analysis report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the noise generation
potential of the proposed project and proposed atten1Jatlon mea$ures to assure that an
environment which is free from excessive or harmful noise Is achieved and maintained.
The report shalt be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The
appro\/ed attenuation features shall ba Incorporated Into the plans and specifications of
th& proposed prclect.
APPROVED SY:
~~ MICHAEL J. Hoiu.
Planning Olraetor
arb
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 381 of 383
July 1, 1991
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Council Member Stanton
McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT-POLICY F-44
As the City Council representative to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Advisory Committee, I have
reviewed the proposed policy. While the intent of the committee's direction to include the
maximum weight limit of 60,000 pounds in the policy has been fulfilled, I am concerned that the
language is not entirely clear. Therefore, I am recommending the paragraph in the Background
section of the Policy (Exhibit 1) be modified to read:
Mc-Clellan-Palomar Airport has become the busiest County-owned airport facility
with more take-offs and landings than any other civilian airport in the San Diego
region. The development of land adjacent to the airport has restricted the airport
to a single 4700 foot runway, and a capacity for 665 based aircraft. Taxiway
configuration limits the weight of aircraft utilizing the facility to a maximum of
60,000 pounds. There is a need to insure that residential and commercial land
uses around the airport and airport operations remain compatible.
The highlighted area indicates the recommended change. I would appreciate receiving any
comments you may have relative to this issue. 61---~
Counci Member
mhs
c: City Manager
City Attorney
Assistant to the City Manager
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 382 of 383
•
(
• • BOARD POLICY F-44 (DRAFT) RJJ-19 APR-1991
DEVELOPMENT OF McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
EXH10,, .
Purpose
To provide a policy establishing guidelines for the future
operation and development of the aviation activity areas en
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Background
Several northern San Diego County eities surreuading
McClellan Palomar Airport have enpressed eeneern that the airport
will be eKpanded in a manner which would lead te an increase in
airport noise. Although the airport does not have an
incompatible land use as defined by the State }teise Standards,
there is a need to control future growth and monitor the impact
of aoise from the airport on surreunding communities.
McClellan-Palomar Airport has become the busiest County-owned
airport facility with more take-offs and landings than any other
civilian airport in the San Diego region. The development of
land adjacent to the airport has restricted the airport to a
single 4700 foot runway, wb.i-ch-d.J.l.e...j;_o _taxiway_-1.im.i_tati..ona-ca-a-
support ai re ra ft-w-e-±::9hin9 1 es s ch-an 6 0, 0-00 pounds-,. . ..and a capacity
for 66..Lba§ed aircraf..t.. There is a need to insure that
residential and commercial land uses around the airoort and
airport operations remain compatible.
Policv
It is the Policy of the Board of Supervisors that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
... :: .
6.
..,
i •
Application will net be made for a full Airport Operating
6ertificate.
A second runway will net be constructed.
The length of the eJtisting runway will not be extended.
The airport will operate in compliance with State and
Fcdera:ly mandated noise standards.
Airport noise levels ,,ill continue te be monitored including
6ing-le Even:. ~ie.:.:: Enpesure :.evels (SEHEL), in the airport
referral area as described in the Palomar Airport
6omprehensive Land Use Plan.
Noise sensitive areas will be identified and included in the
airport's noise abateffient program.
The pilot education program fer noise abatement procedures
will be updated annually.
Oct. 16, 2024 Item #2 383 of 383
8 .
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
• • '!'he .maui.mum gross weight aircraft will not cncccrl 60 7 000
pounds.
The role of McClellan-Palomar Airport shall be to provide
air transportation for the residents of North San Diego
County and to facilitate General Aviation activities while
minimizing noise impacts on surrounding areas and
communities.
Scheduled commuter airline operations are limited to
aircraft having 30 or fewer seats. Commuter airline
aircraft shall meet the FAA Stage III noise criteria.
The airport will operate with one runway at its present
length. Due to land restrictions, a second runway could
not be added.
To insure the future safety and compatibility of the
existing runway length, the County will take a pro-active
role working with local agencies and the FAA to protect
the airspace around the airport from encroachment and to
promote compatible off airport land development.
The County will operate the airport in accordance with any
adopted FAA Part 150 noise compatibility program and in full
compliance with any State or Federal mandated noise
standards relating to the operation of a public airport.
The program will recognize the City of Carlsbad's Noise
Policy #17 and implement mitigation measures to minimize
noise impacts.
The County will monitor aircraft noise and verify the
Community Noise Ecuivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours
within the airport influence area as described in the
Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as we11·as
monitor pilot compliance with any adopted FAA Part 150 Noise
Abatement Program. The County will also monitor Single
Event Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL) in the form of a noise
monitoring system and institute procedures to mitigate
single event noises.
The Airport Manager will produce, distribute and promote a
detailed noise abatement program for the airport. The
program will contain specific flight information and a chart
identifying noise sensitive areas. The noise abatement
program w:ll be updated annually and distributed to pilots.
The Airport Manager will request pilot compliance with the
program.
This policy recognizes SANDAG's Airoort Land Use Commission
Plan.
Sunset Date
This policy will be reviewed for continuance by 12-31-9S.
C
From:Mike Strong
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:Fw: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-
0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:13:18 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Hope Nelson <hopefromthehood@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 8:02:06 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Mike Strong <mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Haber <jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-
0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR
EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners,
Agenda item #2 referenced above is the result of action by Mayor
Blackburn, at the request of Carlsbad citizens, to agendize unfinished work
begun in 2019. We are grateful to our current City Council, who by
unanimous vote, sent this item to staff. What you see in this item is staff's
work, primarily completed by the extremely capable Mike Strong, Assistant
Director of Community Development, who I know has called this a "beast"
more than once. By weight of the document, it certainly is. An additional
thank you goes to Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs, who has always
had a patient ear to explain how the City works.
This is the culmination of work that can ensure the City of Carlsbad has
"final authority on any airfield expansion plans", as was the intention of the
Annexation Agreement between the City and the County in 1978, and the
promise of retaining Local Control for future generations of Carlsbad
residents.
I hope this Planning Commission sees fit to go on record tonight
with its approval in support of this plan.
Most sincerely,
Hope Nelson,
Past President, Citizens for a Friendly Airport
PUBLIC COMMENT Exhibit 8
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Cc:Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:09:45 AM
From: Dee Forsberg, Global Hire <dee@globalhire.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:37 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport
Hi,
I am a long-term resident of Carlsbad and am very concerned about Palomar Airport.
I am asking the Planning Commission to support the proposal presented by Carlsbad
city staff.
Thank you
Delinda (Dee) Forsberg
A full-cycle executive search firm focusing on recruiting mid-level to executive
management professionals
Dee@GlobalHire.org - (760) 214-7458
Licensed and Insured
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport -- please support the proposal by Carlsabd City Staff
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:38 AM
From: Alice <areysbergen1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:33 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport -- please support the proposal by Carlsabd City Staff
The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning
restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all
land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.
PLEASE support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Cc:Eric Lardy; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:15:36 AM
For Planning Commissioners
From: Beverly Marston <bevmarston7@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission:
As a resident who is impacted by the airplane noise from Palomar Airport I am writing to
urge you to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land
use and airport expansion approvals for this airport. Please support the proposal
present by the Carlsbad city staff.
The noise level as it currently stands impacts our ability to hear others talking when we
are outside or if windows are open. Face to face conversations and phone
conversations have to stop. We cannot hear the TV if we are inside and a window is
open. It is already impacting our quality of life, without the larger jets proposed by the
County's agreement with American Airlines.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Beverly Marston
Evans Point Resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Airport operation/zoning
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:08:21 AM
Public comment
From: BOB Gilbert <beckola870@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport operation/zoning
Planning com., PLEASE support the control that Carlsbad has over Palomar Airport
planning. Thank You!! Robert Gilbert 68 yr resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Oct 16 Carlsbad Planning Commission mtg
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:14:17 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane K <vegediane@yahoo.com>Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:08 AMTo: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>Subject: Oct 16 Carlsbad Planning Commission mtg
I am requesting the Commission to support the proposal to be presented by the Carlsbad city staff and supported ythe C4FA organization.
Carlsbad Resident,
Diane Kimura.CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: CRQ
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:07 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Burton <djb83@netzero.net>Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:55 PMTo: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>Subject: CRQ
Please support the proposal by staff so we can maintain local control of OUR airport and prevent any unwarrantedand unwanted expansion of the airport that would ruin the quality of life for all of us.
Don Burton7450 Esfera St.CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: PLEASE SUPPORT LOCAL CONTROL OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:11:24 AM
From: Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 9:54 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT LOCAL CONTROL OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commissioners - Please support
local control of Palomar Airport .. especially regarding new and expanded airport
use. Thank You!
GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR
EXPANDED AIRPORT USES – 1) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval
of a second addendum to a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as
previously addended for: (1) amendments to the general plan, zoning ordinance,
and local coastal program for new and expanded airport uses; and (2) procedures
for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is county
acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport; and 2)
Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of amendments to the city’s
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify
code requirements and permit review procedures for new and expanded airport
land uses; and Oct. 16, 2024 Page 3 3) Adoption of a resolution recommending
approval of city procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.
ACTION TYPE: Legislative STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close
the public hearing, and adopt the resolution(s). PLANNER: Mike Strong
ENGINEER: N/A
Frank Sung, Mariners Point HOA Board Member
(m)760-213-9036
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Airport plan
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:45 AM
From: Harve Meskin <harvem47@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 8:21 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport plan
Please approve the proposal presented by the staff.
Harve Meskin
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Cc:Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Support City of Carlsbad Staff Report
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:11:06 AM
From: Jamie Bolane <jamiebolane@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 9:26 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Support City of Carlsbad Staff Report
Please support recommendations of the City of Carlsbad Staff Report regarding the
restrictions on development of expansion of commercial jet services at Palomar Airport.
Some private jets have already taken illegal routes over our home.
Jamie Bolane
2298 Bryant Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
303-868-7748
jamiebolane@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong; Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:09:19 AM
From: Janet Yaws <janetyaws@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:28 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Janet Yaws <janetyaws@gmail.com>
Subject: Palomar Airport
As a resident of Carlsbad, please support the proposal presented by
Carlsbad city staff to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain
local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar
Airport.
Thank you,
Janet Yaws
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Palomar airport noise abatement
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:54 AM
From: Jerri Hatch <jerrishatch@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:03 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar airport noise abatement
Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff related to keeping our
neighborhoods quiet and safe.
Thank you.
Jerri Hatch
Homeowner
92011
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:28 AM
From: Jim F <jimf099@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 7:09 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport
I live in Vista and I am against American Airlines expansion into Palomar Airport. I dosupport the proposal by the Carlsbad city staff and would like the Planning Commission tocarefully consider the city staff's proposal.
thank you
Jim Fucillo
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:21 AM
Community Development Department
Michele Hardy
Planning Division Secretary
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2609 direct | michele.hardy@carlsbadca.gov
From: Judy White <kalamazoojudy@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:18 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport
Please support the Carlsbad city recommendations to follow the present policy of not
allowing larger commercial flights out of this local, small airport. It was always intended
to be a local airport, not a commercial enterprise.
Judith White, Carlsbad citizen
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
{1:ityof
Carlsbad
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:21:08 AM
From: Mark S <markscarls@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:24 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
I am a long-time Carlsbad resident who lives fairly close to the airport. As such, I have
experienced (especially HEARD) the coming and (always) going of numerous
airlines. Unfortunately, historically, airport rules and regulations, such as takeoff and
landing times, have been made to be broken under current airport supervision.Therefore, I urge all commission members to carefully review and adopt new policies
and zoning restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain
local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar
Airport. That would be an important step in making the airport the good neighbor itshould be but currently is not.
Thank you.
Mark Serepca
Plum Tree Road
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Cc:Mike Strong; Eric Lardy
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport Expansion
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:14:56 AM
For Planning Commissioners
From: Mary LeBlanc <mlb834@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport Expansion
To the Planning Commission:
As the City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in
adopting new policies and zoning restrictions toensure the City of Carlsbad and its residentsretain local control of all land use andairport expansion approvals for PalomarAirport, the tens of thousands of Carlsbad
residents immediately affected implores the
Planning Commission to support the proposal
presented by Carlsbad city staff. We must do
more than just offer a vocal protest. We must
stand our ground.
The County is attempting to steam roll, via back
door measures, the expansion of our airport no
matter the negative effects in terms of the
health, safety and overall well being of Carlsbad
and neighboring residents. Negotiating a contract
with AA to use a plane too large for our airport is
a tragedy waiting to happen. Not imposing flight
path restrictions and flight hours restrictions is
abhorrent to the core.
Please join the City of Vista and take on the
County in opposition of this heavy handed
mandate. We the citizens must maintain local
control.
Thank you in advance for standing with us.
--
Mary
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport -- support for City of Carlsbad & residents to retain local control of all land use and airport
expansion approvals
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:12:26 AM
From: mike@harnettadvisers.com <mike@harnettadvisers.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 6:26 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport -- support for City of Carlsbad & residents to retain local control of all land
use and airport expansion approvals
Dear Sir/Ma’am:
Please consider supporting the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.
Kind regards.
Michael K. Harnett
Harnett Investment Advisers LLC
760.476.1468 Tel
760.476.9868 Fax
www.harnettadvisers.com
The information in this e-mail is intended solely for the recipient and is confidential. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. While the information in this e-mail is deemed reliable, no
guarantee is made with respect to its accuracy. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future
results. This e-mail is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or a solicitation to
buy a security.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Cc:Mike Strong
Subject:FW: Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:19:09 AM
From: Rob Ehlen <robehlen@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar Airport
Planning Commission - Please support the proposal presented by the Carlsbad
city staff.
Thanks, Rob Ehlen
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Local Control of Palomar Airport
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:15:11 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Teri Juybari <juybari2@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:22 AMTo: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>Subject: Local Control of Palomar Airport
Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad City Staff. It is crucial to the quality of life for the citizens ofCarlsbad that the City retain control over the airport.
Thank you,Teri A. Juybari2164 Dickinson DriveCarlsbad, CA 92008Sent from my iPhoneCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Support for C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff Palomar Airport Proposal
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:09 AM
From: Tom Frieder <tflyer97@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:16 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Support for C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff Palomar Airport Proposal
Good Morning-
As a resident of Carlsbad /Shorepointe area I support the C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff
efforts to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land
use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.
Thank you,
Tom Frieder
1183 Mariposa Rd
Carlsbad 92011
858-354-8664
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: 10/16/24 Meeting - Please support the Carlsbad City Staff Proposal RE Land use and airport expansion
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 2:32:42 PM
From: Scott Morgan <smorgantwo@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 2:26 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Dom Betro <dbetro@aol.com>
Subject: 10/16/24 Meeting - Please support the Carlsbad City Staff Proposal RE Land use and airport
expansion
Carlsbad Planning Commission on Wednesday, Oct 16th at 5:30pm at Carlsbad
City Hall.
The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning
restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control
of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.
Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.
Thank you,
Scott Morgan - Carlsbad, Residence6647 Thrasher Place
For More information:
Meeting details and a copy of the City's proposal may be found on our websiteat c4fa.org/announcements.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: subject: Approval for City of Carlsbad
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:24:12 AM
From: Joanne Santana Montez <joannesm94@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:07 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Joanne Santana Montez <joannesm94@gmail.com>
Subject: subject: Approval for City of Carlsbad
From: Cisco Santana- Montez
3535 Linda Vista dr. #60 San Marcos Ca 92078
(Rancho Vallecitos Mobile Estates) I am
sending this message regarding the approval from your commission for the City of
Carlsbad to retain local control of all land use and airport expansion. As a representative
of our Mobile Homepark,it is extremely important to us that the city of Carlsbad receive
the approval in order to control the expansion of the Palomar Airport.
Our mobile homes are in direct line with the airport landing area, and they fly
directly over our homes, at a lower altitude. It will be a terrible loud noise coming from
their huge jet engines. also, these jet planes leave a black soot shot oui of
their engines.that land on our homes,cars and our roads.
We are elderly residents, in our 70 's and 80"s and require peaceful conditions.We are
requesting your approval so the city of Carlsbad can control this situation, not the
County of San Diego. Thanks you for your help regarding this matter.
Sincerely.....Cisco Santana-Montez
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITREVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES –
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:03:30 AM
From: Beverly Kantowitz <sendit2bev@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:00 AM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS
AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES –
DATE: October 16, 2024
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, City of Carlsbad, CA.
planning@carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS
AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
MESSAGE:
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Please act to protect the “Heart Health” of our community -- specifically its Quality of Life:
Please ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport
expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.
We heartily request your support of the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.
Many Thanks.
David & Beverly Kantowitz,
6913 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad CA 92011
sendit2bev@gmail.com--
Beverly Kantowitz
Email: sendit2bev@gmail.com
cell: (760) 845 2220
From:Planning
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-
0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:25:20 AM
From: Hope Nelson <hopefromthehood@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 8:02 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Mike Strong <mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov>; Jason Haber <jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-
0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR
EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners,
Agenda item #2 referenced above is the result of action by Mayor
Blackburn, at the request of Carlsbad citizens, to agendize unfinished work
begun in 2019. We are grateful to our current City Council, who by
unanimous vote, sent this item to staff. What you see in this item is staff's
work, primarily completed by the extremely capable Mike Strong, Assistant
Director of Community Development, who I know has called this a "beast"
more than once. By weight of the document, it certainly is. An additional
thank you goes to Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs, who has always
had a patient ear to explain how the City works.
This is the culmination of work that can ensure the City of Carlsbad has
"final authority on any airfield expansion plans", as was the intention of the
Annexation Agreement between the City and the County in 1978, and the
promise of retaining Local Control for future generations of Carlsbad
residents.
I hope this Planning Commission sees fit to go on record tonight
with its approval in support of this plan.
Most sincerely,
Hope Nelson,
Past President, Citizens for a Friendly Airport
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Carlsbad Planning Commission
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:24:38 AM
From: jmcknight11@cox.net <jmcknight11@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:41 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Carlsbad Planning
I live in San Marcos and have noticed an increase in air traffic over my house. Most noticeable is the
increase in jet traffic. I am in support of the proposal from Carlsbad city staff.
James
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmittal is a confidential communication or may otherwise be privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender, and immediately delete this message and all its attachments, if
any.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Mike Strong
To:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Oct 16, 2024 Agenda Item #2 - Palomar Airport
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:13:07 AM
From: Vickey Syage <vickey.syage@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:08 AM
To: Planning <Planning@carlsbadca.gov>; Mike Strong <mike.strong@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Planning Commission Oct 16, 2024 Agenda Item #2 - Palomar Airport
Please include in tonight’s Planning Commission Agenda Packet for Agenda Item #2 - Palomar
Airport.
Please forward to each of the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you.
My name is Vickey Syage and I’m the current president of Citizens for a Friendly Airport, C4FA.
I ask that the Planning Commission to please accept the Staff recommendations and pass the
Resolutions brought forth.
On behalf of C4FA, I’d like to thank the City Council for giving its unanimous bipartisan support to
pursue this much needed project, and to Staff for the incredible body of work that you have in front of
you – all 283 pages of it. This has been a well thought out, well vetted, Herculean effort.
Tonight is the culmination of 7 years of work, over $1 million in outside legal fees paid by the City of
Carlsbad, and six figures spent by C4FA.
The City of Carlsbad was granted local control of land use at Palomar Airport by the County, as a
condition of the 1978 Airport Annexation, an annexation that was initiated and pursued by County. As
the 2021 Court’s ruling so clearly states, “the County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its
immunities with respect to the airport.”
There shouldn’t have been a need for our lawsuit against the County. In the early years, after the
Airport’s Annexation, things worked as they should have. The County came to the City for its input
and approval for land use changes at the Airport. Sometime in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s things
changed. The County started to steam roll ahead, and quite honestly, the City simply let them.
The County maintained that the County owned, operated and controlled everything that happened at
Palomar Airport, including land use. This isn’t just C4FA’s perspective. The City’s own outside
counsel, Kaplan Kirsh & Rockwell (KKR) was given the same false information, as demonstrated by a
presentation given by Peter Kirsch at the May 7, 2019 City Council Meeting:
“County position:
·It is exempt from City ordinances
·Compliance with CUP is voluntary
·No waiver of its immunity”
It wasn’t KKR’s fault. The County provided the false information, and documents to prove otherwise
were not made available. One public records request that I personally made to the County
confirming Carlsbad’s local control based on annexation took the County over 2 years to correctly
respond to, and the response came one month after the Court’s ruling.
The lack of record keeping and the withholding of information led to bad governance. As KK&R
reported at that same 2019 meeting:
“A note about history:
⁃Past City, County actions (and inaction) could be criticized with benefit of hindsight
⁃City could have been more aggressive in the past
⁃Our focus has been on what can be done now and in future”
The culmination of these past actions led to an illegal 2018 McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan
Update, passed 3 weeks before the former D5 Supervisor termed out. C4FA did everything we
possibly could to stop the approval of the plan. In the end, our last and only option was to
litigate. We did, and we won. The Court ordered the 2018 Master Plan Update to be rescinded.
Tonight, we are asking you to take the next step, so the city, county, and residents never have to go
through an ordeal such as this again. Staff have created an instruction manual, a “recipe book” if you
will, with instructions on how the City and County must proceed with land use changes to honor the
Annexation agreement and abide by the Court’s ruling.
I respectfully ask you to please vote to accept all of Staff’s requested Resolutions to protect Carlsbad
and its residents for generations to come.
Thank you.
Vickey Syage
C4FA President
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Expansion Palomar Airport: Support the City Staff"s Proposal
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:07:39 PM
From: Cynthia Trevino <cytrevino@resonnect.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Jason Haber <jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov>; Rebecca.Smith2@sdcounty.ca.gov;
Cipriano.vargas@sdcounty.ca.gov; Salome.Tash@mail.house.gov; Kyle.Krahel@mail.house.gov;
Manager Internet Email <manager@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Expansion Palomar Airport: Support the City Staff's Proposal
The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning
restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local controlof all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.
Please support the City of Carlsbad’s staff proposal.
Cynthia Trevino
Voter, Carlsbad Homeowner, Taxpayer
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Carlsbad Airport
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:53:38 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Germann <robertgermann05@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:53 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Carlsbad Airport
Hello, Please Vote NO on any re—development and or expansion of the Carlsbad Airport Thank You
RobertGermann
SentHello from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Planning
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland
Subject:FW: Carlsbad Airport
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:16:59 PM
From: Robert Germann <robertgermann05@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:15 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Carlsbad Airport
Hello, Please protect our community by taking measures, adopting rules, passing
ordinances to control ANY changes to our LOCAL airport means LOCAL control. THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY , their "STRATEGIC PLAN", plans
and decides land use for and around the airport without citizens input. This is NOT in
CARLSBAD's best interests.
Thank You
Robert Germann
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Carla Flores
To:Mike Strong
Cc:Cynthia Vigeland; Planning
Subject:FW: Palomar airport proposal
Date:Thursday, October 17, 2024 7:51:35 AM
Hello Mike and Cynthia,
This email arrived in the planning inbox.
Best Regards,
Carla Flores
Community Development Department
Carla Flores
Senior Office Specialist
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2626 Direct | carla.flores@carlsbadca.gov
Telework full day Tuesdays and Thursdays 2:30-5 p.m.
Track 1
From: Patty Gray <prgray8@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsb
adca.gov>
Subject: Palomar airport proposal
Carlsbad Planning Commission:
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission support the proposal for Palomar
airport presented by the Carlsbad city staff.
{city of
Carlsbad
Thank you.
Randy & Patty Gray
425-346-8500
prgray8@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Code Amendments for
New and Expanded Airport
Land Uses
Oct. 16, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION
{city of
Carlsbad
PROJECT
•GPA/ZCA/LCPA
•Procedures to implement PUC Sec 21161.6
•CEQA - Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR
{city of
Carlsbad
TIMELINE
1959
Airport opened
1975
Airport Master Plan
1978
Airport lands
annexed
1980
Voter initiative
CUP/ZCA approved
u
0
0
{city of
Carlsbad
TIMELINE CONT’D
1984
Resolution adopted
opposing expansion
1997
Airport Master Plan
Update 2018
Airport Master Plan
Update
Lawsuits
2024
ZCA work initiated
2019
Resolutions
adopted opposing
expansion
2021
Lawsuit judgement
Airport Master Plan
Update
SCOPE OF PROPOSED GPA
1)Oppose changes beyond B-II enhanced ARC designation
2)Incorporate state law definitions
3)Require airport land uses to obtain a new or amended
CUP
4)Permit airport development within the current
boundaries of the airport
{city of
Carlsbad
SCOPE OF PROPOSED ZCA
1)Incorporate state law definitions
2)Permit airport land uses only by CUP
3)Amend zoning tables to allow “airport” in limited
zones
{city of
Carlsbad
SCOPE OF PROPOSED LCPA
1)Land Use Plan - GPA
2)Implementation Plan - ZCA
{city of
Carlsbad
SCOPE OF PROPOSED PROCEDURES
1)PUC Sec 21161.6 implementation
2)Noticing requirements
3)Outline of requirements for approval
{city of
Carlsbad
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval/adoption to City Council
•CEQA - Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR
•Code amendments - GPA/ZCA/LCPA
•Procedures to implement PUC Sec 21161.6
{city of
Carlsbad