HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-20; City Council; ; Presentations on the County of San Diego's Proposed Master Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report for McClellan-Palomar Airport~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
February 20, 2018
Mayor and City Council
Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
7 60-434-2891
CAReview fi2__
Subject: Presentations on the County of San Diego's Proposed Master Plan Update
and Draft Environmental Impact Report for McClellan-Palomar Airport
Recommended Action
View County of San Diego presentation regarding its proposed master plan update for
McClellan-Palomar Airport and the accompanying draft environmental impact report. Receive
presentation from the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell regarding the City of Carlsbad's
authority related to the County's proposed master plan.
Executive Summary
McClellan-Palomar Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the County of
San Diego ("County") and located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Carlsbad. The
County has prepared an update to its 1997 Airport Master Plan and an accompanying draft
program environmental impact report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA").
The draft master plan includes three main changes to the existing airport. One is adding safety
features at each end of the runway to slow down planes and help prevent them from going off
the end of the runway in an emergency. The second is shifting the runway to the north to
increase the separation distance between the runway and the taxiway. The third is to extend
the runway to the east end of the property, near the corner of El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road. The draft master plan also contemplates certain improvements to airport
facilities.
The county does not currently have funding allocated to make the improvements in the plan.
The draft master plan divides the proposed projects into three phases: near term (0-7 years),
intermediate term (8-12 years) and long-term (13-20 years.)
Discussion
The record reflects that the City of Carlsbad has long sought greater control over the airport.
The airport was founded in 1957 and opened in 1959 on land which was then part of the
unincorporated area of San Diego County. In 1973, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
annexation study for the airport property that was within the city's sphere of influence.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 1 of 207
In 1975, the County prepared an airport master plan that outlined the long-term development
plans for the airport, which included the extension of the existing runway and acquisition of
land outside of the airport boundary for an additional runway, airport operations buildings and
taxiways. The extension of the existing runway and the acquisition of additional land outside of
the airport for an additional runway were never implemented.
Annexation proceedings were completed and in December, 1978, and the City of Carlsbad
finally annexed the existing airport site into the City of Carlsbad. In 1980, the citizens of
Carlsbad circulated an initiative requiring a vote prior to any City Council legislative action
necessary to expand the airport, discussed further below, and in 1984, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 7558, requesting a Joint Powers Agreement to limit the level of operations and
prevent the expansion of "airport facilities such as the addition of a second runway, extension
of the existing runway or upgrading of airport facilities." The City Council later voted to
approve a proposed draft agreement and submit that agreement to the County for its approval
(see Resolution 8249). There is no record of a County response or of an executed agreement.
Federal Control of Airports
Airports in the United States are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The
principles of federal preemption provide that federal law supersedes state and local law in
many instances. What this means for the McClellan-Palomar Airport is that the State of
California and the City of Carlsbad have limited authority to regulate how the Airport operates,
what it builds and how it grows. In their presentation, Kaplan Kirsch attorneys will explain the
principles of federal preemption.
Citizen lnitiative/CMC 21.53.015
In 1980, as a result of a proposed citizen initiative, the City Council directly adopted an
ordinance that prevents the City Council from approving a zone change, general plan
amendment or any other legislative action necessary to authorize airport expansion without a
public vote. The language proposed by the citizen initiative was codified as follows:
Carlsbad Municipal Code section 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
purposes.
(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.
Prior to adoption of the ordinance, Mayor Ron Packard asked then City Attorney Vince Biondo
about the effects, if any, of adoption of the ordinance on the approved Master Plan of the
Airport. The minutes reflect the following response:
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 2 of 207
The City Attorney responded [sic] the County would only need approval of expansion if
same involved the acquisition of additional property, in which case, the adopted
ordinance would require prior voter approval. Any expansion of existing property would
not be affected.
The City Attorney again opined on the application of CMC 21.53.015 in a letter addressed to the
County Airport Manager dated May 3, 1993 regarding the County's terminal development and
space needs analysis. City Attorney Ronald Ball stated voter approval would be required if the
County acquired real property outside of the boundaries of the plot plan of the airport as
approved as Exhibit A to CUP 172 (because that acquisition would require re-designation in the
City of Carlsbad's General Plan and rezoning in its zoning ordinance, both of which are
legislative actions). Mr. Ball further stated that the proposed acquisition for a "clear zone"
would not require facilities or structures and thus would not necessitate re-designation or
rezoning ofthe city's existing planning documents. As such, no legislative action of the City
Council would be required, and thus, no vote of the people would be required for these
acquisitions.
Conditional Use Permit 172, 172(8)
In addition to the question of whether the County's proposed master plan triggers a vote under
the municipal code, there are questions about the impact of the City of Carlsbad's conditional
use permits 172 and 172(B) on the proposed master plan.
On September 24, 1972, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1699
approving a conditional use permit for airport improvements. CUP 172 includes authorized
structures, facilities and commercial activities permitted by the CUP and outlines when further
review would be required.
Again, in his May 1993 opinion letter to the County Airport Manager, City Attorney Ronald Ball
opined that amendment of CUP 172 would be required if any of the structures or facilities
proposed are not those listed in Section l(a) of Table I of the CUP dated September 24, 1980.
This opinion appears to be an interpretation only of the CUP conditions.
On November 3, 2004, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission adopted resolution 5776
approving conditional use permit 172(B). CUP 172(8) approved an amendment to allow the use
of three County owned properties located adjacent to the airport for airport parking areas, an
allowed use in the zone.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 3 of 207
Next Steps
Staff will return to City Council on March 13, 2018, for additional City Council direction and
consideration of a recommended comment letter on the County of San Diego's proposed
airport master plan update and draft environmental impact report.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Receiving a report does not qualify as a "project" under CEQA per state CEQA Guidelines
section 15378.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time.
Exhibits
1. 2/5/1974 Staff Report re Annexation Study;
2. 11/2/1976 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation;
3. 3/1/1977 ?taff Report re Joint Meeting with City of Carlsbad/County Board of Supervisors;
4. 9/6/1977 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation EIR;
5. 11/1/1977 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation;
6. 10/3/1978 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation;
7. 11/7/1978 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation;
8. 12/19/1978 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Annexation;
9. 8/5/1980 Staff Report re initiative petition;
10. 8/5/1980 Meeting Minutes;
11. Ordinance 9558 adopted on 8/12/1980;
12. Planning Commission Resolution 1699 (CUP 172) adopted on 9/24/1980;
13. 4/3/1984 Staff Report Requesting a Joint Powers Agreement Limiting Operations at McClellan-
Palomar Airport
14. 7/2/1985 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Joint Powers Agreement;
15. 10/29/1985 Staff Report re Palomar Airport Joint Powers Agreement;
16. 5/3/1993 letter from City Attorney to County re: CUP 172;
17. 11/3/2004 Planning Commission Staff Report regarding CUP 172{8);
18. Planning Commission Resolution 5776 (CUP 172{8)) adopted on 11/3/2004;
19. Correspondence received up until Feb. 14, 2018 ( on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
20. City of Carlsbad General Plan Chapter 2 Land Use, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=24087
21. City of Carlsbad General Plan Chapter 6.5 Airport Hazards, which can be found at the following
link: http://www.carl sbadca .gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=29363
22. Information on City of Carlsbad Zoning, which can be found at the following link:
http://www.carlsbadca .gov/services/depts/planning/zoning.asp
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 4 of 207
~ .-- /--'[-I/
Date- ~h~~ 5, 1974
. Referred To: City Council- a. .., . -.
Submi ttcd By: ' Dlanninrr Department . Subject: 4nnexation Studv . . .. ..
. -I-
;' ,r
..
:. . - Stst'ement of the E4atter' - I
The Cit,y Council ,directed the Plannincr StafF on 4ucrust ?l., 1"7?, to nrbare a study for the nurnose of develoninrr an annexati'on r)rom-anl f.or those Cnuntv lands within th&i Carls- had snhere of influence. ,.
The attached-.renorf is a summary of that'studv and its recommendations,
a
*w .
- ._
.. .. . .. I.
*.
..
.. . -- .. .. f
*..
-.
-.
,.
-.
a*
.. .. .. .? ..- .-
Fxh i b i t .. ..
. .. 1. Van #l - CuFrent Annexations' within Snhere of Influence. a. . .
2.. Yap #2 - :tatus o'f.County :Land within Sohere of. influence.. . -*
-. . 3. b.~emorandum~.from Plannina Director sumarizincr annexation stufly. ..
4..
. 5. Summarv of annexation 0rpc.edures to he sent to nrowrty owners.
. * .. . b. Sarrlhle let& to- he sent. to Dronerty owners. _-
0 EXH1BITS:WILL BE SHOWN .ON PROJECTOR * * *. .. .- Staff Reconmendat ions to. City Manager
tea
Staff recommends that the City Coun,cil initiate' the recommendations &nhined in the at- tached memorandum for rplicitincl restionse fromoroverty owners in non-annexed areas and orderinq annexation priorities.
.. ..
c .
.
Exhibit 1
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 5 of 207
AB No.
-- ,- -
Date: Felmary 5. 1974
City Manager's Recommendation
The attached study outlines an annexation procedure and
priorities a city can follow in an attempt to fill in the central County portion of the City area. It is
recommended the Council instruct staff to proceed with
procedures.
' these annexations based on the proposed policy and
Council Action
2-5-74 Council accepted recommendations of City Manager.
-2-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 6 of 207
. - ..... - ............... .......... .... .. .... ... ' e-
... .. ..
......... ...
..
......... ..... .. ......................... : . ........... i .......... .............................. ........... , .................. i..
................... ......
... ...... ..... . . ,. ... .). ,. . .- -.._-. . .._,_. .. - .... ..
.1.*.. ... ........ ........ ....... ........ ........... ..,. , ,. .................................. *- ,._--.I-. _-_. - -.-- -_ ........ ..-.._-.L_......____....._. .
.........
..... . ., -. ....... .... ....
... .. t
... .... __.. ._., .-.! ._.. .._,
.. , .... - .--- . i ...* . --. - .! -... L . . __.. ...; .... L
....... ...... .... ...... .,. . ...... ..... ....... ......
..... . ~... .. , .... ..,._ .?... ..,,-. ..,. . ...-.. .....
....... ....... ........ ....... ......... - ..... - .......... .- . .. - ....
...... ... 1 ... - ...... ...... ....... ...... - .... .... ../.._
........ ............ .... ..........,..... ....................... .... - .............. ..... ~ ,..... .......... .................... ...... * ................. ....................... ...... I .............
...... , ......-..... ... .. --... i... .. ......
-.-- ..--__. ~ I_ .___._____ . - ................. - .. ....... , ..... .~ ..-. ...... ....-- I ....... ...._l.. .... ~ ............._... ........ ~. ........... -. .. . ..*.. ... -... . -. . -... ..... ......-..... ..
.... ..... ..... .... i .... i ..... .._.. ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... -.... ..... ...... ...... ....
.... .... ..... .... .... . . _. . .... _-_ _--_. . ........ . . _. . ..... -._. .. ...... -.-.. ...... .__-- ....
.. -. -
...
.. .. ..
.... .....
MAP #I .. February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 7 of 207
.. ... .. .... .... .......... ,_ ...... ...--... .... __._ ......... -- -. .. _.__.. .. .. ....
. .L~RRENT STATUS OF COUNTY LHhU ... ..... ... .................. ............ ... .......... . , .................. .I ............... ............... .... .,
.............
I__--
...._-..
....... .- ...
........... .-
........
. ._.._.
..... .... .... .... ......... ...
, . ., .. ..... .MAP # 2 ...
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 8 of 207
--
31
10
11
-1-
..
,.
1 - Explain the current state of annexations within the i 1 Cdrlsbad sphere of influence; I
13
l5
design and facil it2te an orderly annexation program;
- Discuss legislative proposals relative to annexation;
- Describe alternative actions which could be taken to
!
I facilitate ultimate annexations.
I
19
2a
! the 1 following activities aimed at developing an orderly annexation pro-
/ ' gram:
findings of the preliminary Study, Staff would recommend the
25
26
I sensual annexations. 1 i 2. Applicants for annexation should be.encouraged to
! Icon-tzct adjacent propzrty oliiilers in kopes of inclt!d'r,g then -i~: the-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 9 of 207
3‘: consent.
I! j!
!!
30:; desi9nated as “poter?tially inhabited” do -- cot meet the crjttei-ion of
2-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 10 of 207
I:
I,
! I
j j
1;
The infcrmation includes: property ownership, acreage, assessed
valuation ar,d tax districts of all pG:'cels, and location of resi-
dznces (shovin on !4zp g2).
B. Drs,ft a letter to property Qrlrners which would inform th?m
of the annexation at this time, invite their questions and ccm-
merits, and test the reaction for possible consent or protest,
Stzff feels that these letters will not only invite comments which
can eliminate potential stumbling blocks to annexation (or vice
versa), but it can also answer some concerns which property oviners
are likely to have and ease any confusion prior to Public Hearing.
C. Prepare several alternative annexation programs on the ba-
sis of owner-initiated, council-initiated, -- consensual, forced (j .e,
under protest) and inhabited annexations and var-ious combinations
thereof.
D. Develop an informal series of annexstion priorities based
on the directive of the City Council to develop an annexation pro-
gram which would minimize time and labor involved. Briefly suinmar-
izcd, high priority annexations would be:
1. Consensual
2. Within the county island
3. Uninhabited
4. Large in size
5. Exclusive of encunbranccs or restrictive features
(e.q., in need of improvements)
6. Would not leave additional county islands.
E. Dctcrrriine ill; any of the areas proposed to be e+/cr?tualiy
annexed would be difficult to service. Discussion with various -
-3-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 11 of 207
--
1911a~ea of thz land to be annexed, and -the land to be annexed is con-
i;
I/ 25'ilengthy and tedious and can promote ill feeling on the part. 0.: the
961: property oune;ps. Having exhausted 31-1 alternatives phased con-
27 ii sensual anti.?xations, however , forced s,nnexation could !J$ a jIeces-
I/
f/
28jl,,,y and useful taol. ti
I/ 29 !; 5. - Ini?.abi-teeri -- Annexations: It is p.robab?e that an election
3ojqs.~jl? b2 necessary for an inhabited annexation in the area marked 1: (I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 12 of 207
--
25
I! I: - II
I 1 d;-ti,.ins ,p.tag?d be ?~gal!y ar!d practiczily qi1eL;tioilable.
I1
i\j, si: 23;2~ E;;IF(jf?!,i CITY n:.i!, n''.,'T'{2j'if]3.I il, t\ !: BC J __________ _____._~ -- -- ---------- --- --
~~r;atz t3i 11 1326 (;lniSo;-m C-ity Annex;ltion Act), cLrr-t-ent1.y be-
I:
~ng h?ai-d by ti22 Senate Local Government Comini tte.2, proposes sever-
.C a1 changes in annexation proceedings, vih'ich, 7-i passed, I.;OU'I~ sig-
nificantly sinplify the process of annex-ing both inhabited and un-
inhabited arzas. Cogznt features of Si3 1386 include:
A. A City could initiate annexations for inhabited areas. I' jl
ll
11
ii
Jl
9 1 (This is not currently allowed.)
LO ii B. The definition of "i-nhabited territory" would be changed
11J to mean territory which is used or zoned for residential, commer-
1211 cial, industrial, institutional or governmental use which has a
13i'population-to-area ratio of two or more registered voters residing-
1411 therein. All other territory would be deemed uninhabited. (NOTE:
15'; All of the anticipated annexations of Carlsbad ivould be considered
151; uninhabited under this definition.)
17 /; C. The proposed legislation trroilld simplify petition require-
181rnegts for both inhabited and uninhabited annexations to: 1) sig-
/i
I;
I: II
c;f 70% or more of regfstered voters; or 2). 10% of the pro-
i
D. The proposed legislation would terminate proceedings under
owning 10% or-more of the assessed valuation.
E. In inhabited territory: 1) Proceedings would terminate 1 i i
22imajority pro-test defified as: 50% or more of the value of land and -- I;
291
23'' ir;iLcov.ements for inhabited territory and 50% or more of the land I/ -
-
1
assessed value; and 3) If less than 10% protest is filed, t10 elec- t
321; hearing, notice or election ?P it is less than 50 acres, is I! /j
ti II
1
-5- I 1;
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 13 of 207
-- A-
42d by I. , ana ; s dif
'I a ';I 'v!
c sjmp
ude 52
tural
cu'id e1i;ninate a
ly thdt annexati
pardkion of an a
barrier 3r land
ex< s-ti
must b
a by a
p
d 2 con
stree
anoth
i ty
i vein
e ti t i
L!
1 ned by 7
tY
-5-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 14 of 207
-- A-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 15 of 207
..
.,
"'" '""'"'"""''
f,'•] -~.,. ,,-.-.,,...,n.•1 '"'.~ S+,.·,:;:,_['_f __ ]•_~: ,,. ,.,,. .... -· I ; • ~. --J-\. .. '~-,,,:1-.. ..!..J.•-:::, -----,. .. ·~ t :.:._,J,J,.,..: ,;.1;1 a:~1ex~tl.on s :~.~rl~r
C...~ Ol""d.-;::2:•ly_ c:..t!.d
i·',...o '-';."' ..... City Coti..:~cjJ __ .for· tb.-~-pu.11)0::,e -:_)f c.:·=1~~:ci.itir:g
If ymi haYe an.y questions or co:r.r.-.ent.s reg2.r-din.6 crmez.ati:on7 plea.3e :f~el. free to contE".ct D2.na Hield of the. City Pl2> .... "'ling St.ai.'f 1 at 729-llSJ.1
~---'· ,-, ·· 2or 'J..J-'-!J. • ... ;)-•
Attach:
.4..YL."1exation, of Unin.l-iabited . Territory·
Very truly you.rs,
D~nald A. Agatep Planning Diractor
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 16 of 207
(1) s2t not less than 40 mr mora thm 60 days after passags
of resolution.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 17 of 207
B,
L
(I)
(2)
Iiearjng set not mors than 30 days after pz'-ssage of resolxtian.
city clerk cases copy of resoluti.cn -to IX pu~~ishsc~ at leait
onca not less 3Anai.i 4 days prior to hemkgi or CQY of resau- tion to be posted not less tkra 7 days before the hearjng,
(3) Hearkg. Chmges in bounda5.es subn%ted to loczl agency
fornation com&ssion for qprayzl.
9. Fjle statemefit or nzp or plzt xith State Boar& or" Equd5zation..
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 18 of 207
-
•
•
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (Adjourned Regular Meeting)
February 6, 1974 Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting: 3:00 P.M.
Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
1-
6-
ROLL CALL:
The following items were continued from the regular
meeting of February 5, 1974 and are listed by item
number from that Agenda .
HOUSING AUTHORITY:
The Council adjourned to the Housing Authority at 3:05
P.M. and reconvened at 3:25 P.M., with all Councilmen
present.
9-DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS.
A. Planning.
[25] 11. Agenda Bill #2290. Annexation Study.
[57]
A colored map designating areas under study for the
purpose of developing an annexation program for those
County lands within the City of Carlsbad Sphere of
Influence, was exhibited and referred to in the staff
report by the Associate Planner.
Lengthy discussion was held by the Council regarding
the annexation proceedings outlined in the memorandum
from the Planning Director attached to the Agenda Bill,
which also included recommendations for Annexation
Priorities.
The City Manager stated that if the Council elected to
instruct the staff to proceed as recommended in their
memorandum, he would advise the staff to proceed with
caution in initiating these proceedings.
Following further discussion, a motion was made to adopt
the recommendations of the City Manager and the staff
was instructed to proceed with the procedures and prior-
ities as outlined in their memorandum to the City Council.
13. Agenda Bill #2251 -Supplement #1. Amendment
to General Plan Procedure.
A staff report was given by the Associate Planner and
reference made by him to the procedures contained in
a memorandum to the City Manager dated January 25, 1974 .
Lengthy discussion ensued by the Council with questions
answered by the City Manager, City Attorney and Associate.
Planner. It was requested by the Council that, with
reference to Line 27, Page 2 of Ordinance #9379, the
words "Planning Commission and" precede the words
"council hearings".
Following further discussion, Ordinance No. 9379, was
introduced for a first reading:
COUNCILMEN
i~~~\
~· ~ .. ~ ';,. l'.
\ft• •u·-• ,\
1 '~ ll1\
Present XX XX X
Motion
Ayes
Motion Ayes
X X X X X X
X
X X X X X ORDINANCE NO. 9379, amending Title 21, Chapters 21.52
and 21.54 of the Municipal Code by the amendment ofSec-
tions 21.52.030, 21.52.040 and 21.52.100 and by the addi
of Section 21.62.160 and 21.54.120 thereto to provide
procedures and an application fee for processing amend-
ments to the General Plan, as amended.
ion
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 19 of 207
'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO.__...c$.,__7 ____ '/ ... f ________ _
DATE: November 2, 1976
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
Initial: Dept.Hd.�-
C.Atty.\} fl)
C.Mgr.�
SubJect: PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION s, vJJ )1t" . .;,) I
Statement of the Matter .. The attached report outlines the impact the annexation of PalomarAirport would have on the City of Carlsbad. Since the City is initiating the annexation of the airport, an application for annexation has peen prepared for submittal to LAFCO.
If the City Council desires to initiate the annexation at thistime, the recommendations below should be approved.
Exhibit
Memo to City Manager dated October 20, 1976.
Airport layout map indicating area to be annexed. (Wall Exhibit)
Recommendation
1.City Council request the County Board of Supervisors toconsent to the annexation.
2.Direct staff to file application with LAFCO pendingconsent of Board of Supervisors.
Counci 1 action
11-2-76 Staff with directed to proceed with annexation proceedings of Palomar Airport.
·� ·t
Exhibit 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 20 of 207
DATE: October 20, 1976
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION
The following report has been prepared concerning the proposed
annexation of Palomar Airport to the City of Carlsbad. The
San Diego County Board of Supervisors has recently given final
approval to the Palomar Airport Master Plan and the County will
begin implementation of the plan as funds become available.
The only land proposed for annexation at this time is the County
owned property at the Airport. Approximately 255 acres are
proposed for annexation. This report will briefly analyze three
impacts of the annexation; Municipal service demands; anticipated
revenues; and land use regulation.
SERVICE DEMANDS
Sewer Service
The City of Carlsbad is presently providing sewer service to
the Airport. The City and County entered into an agreement re-
garding service in May, 1975. The County currently pays an
annual sewer service charge as specified in the agreement. The
agreement further provides that in the event the Airport property
is annexed to the City of Carlsbad, the agreement shall be deemed
to be modified to provide for a rate (sewer service charge) estab-
lished on the same basis as for other commercial and industrial
users within the City limits.
Water Service
Water service to the Airport is provided by Carlsbad Municipal
Water District. Annexation should have no direct effect on the
provision of water service to the Airport.
Trash Hauling
The same trash hauler operating in the City of Carlsbad is
also providing service to the Airport and this service would
continue after annexation.
Leisure Service
The proposed annexation would have no significant impact on
the demand for Park and Recreation and Library service.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 21 of 207
October 20, 1976
Page 2
Subject: Palomar Airport Annexation
Public Works Maintenance
The City of Carlsbad would become responsible for the maintenance
of that portion of Palomar Airport Road which lies adjacent to
Palomar Airport.
Since the Airport property is in County ownership, the main-
tenance of interior streets and other public improvements within
the airport would most likely remain the responsibility of the
County. However, County staff has indicated that it may be
desirable to bring certain interior streets up to City standards
and have the City accept such streets into the City street system
and therefore become responsible for their maintenance.
Business License Enforcement
Most businesses operating at Palomar Airport would be subject
to the City Business License requirements. After an initial
effort to insure that all businesses are licensed, there should
be no significant enforcement problems at the Airport. The
Airport Manager has indicated that he will assist the City in
any way possible to help insure that businesses are properly
licensed.
Police Services
The Police Department indicates that the proposed annexation
will have a very slight effect on its patrol activities. Routine
patrol service can easily be provided through the present beat
organization. It is not anticipated that the Airport will generate
a significant demand for police service.
Fire Service
The fire service required at the Airport will fall into three
categories; inspection, structural fire protection, and crash
services.
The demand for fire services in the short term will not heavily
impact the Fire Department. There will be an increase in fire
inspection activities, but this increase can be integrated into
the present work load of the Fire Inspection Division. Structural
fire protection at the Airport can be adequately provided from the
La Costa Station for the short term. However, as the industrial
property at the Airport and in the adjacent industrial parks
develops, an additional station will be required in the general
vicinity of the Airport. It is anticipated that this upgrading
will occur as the Airport develops.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 22 of 207
October 20, 1976
Page 3
Subject: Palomar Airport Annexation
Building Inspection
Annexation should not create a significant demand for service
from the Building Department. The cost of providing inspection
services should be offset by permit and plan check fees.
REVENUES
Annexation of the Airport would cause four significant sources
of revenues to accrue to the City. The following estimate of
revenues for the 1976-77 fiscal year is based on 1975-76 revenue
figures.
Sales Tax $13,050
Retail sales transactions at the Airport are currently subject
to the 6% sales tax. Upon annexation the sales tax revenue
would be redistributed and the revenue currently going to the
County would instead go to the City. There would be no increase
in the sales tax rate; it would simply be redistributed.
Aircraft Personal Property Tax $29,672
Aircraft at Palomar Airport are subject to this tax. At present,
one-half of this tax goes to school districts and one-half to
the County. Upon annexation, distribution would be as follows:
1/3 County, 1/3 school districts, 1/3 City. This is simply a
redistribution of tax revenues, the tax rate would not be increased
due to annexation.
Possessory Interest Tax $ 6,200
Possessory interest in land and improvements is subject to City
property tax of $1.90. This tax is already levied by taxing
jurisdictions which include the Airport within their boundaries.
Upon annexation, the City's tax levy would be added to the com-
bined total.
Business License Tax $ 528+
The revenue derived would depend upon the gross receipts of the
businesses at the Airport. A conservative estimate of $1,500,000
gross receipts was assumed for this estimate.
TOTAL: $49,450
There do not appear to be any other significant revenue sources
which would accrue to the City due to the annexation of the Airport.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 23 of 207
October 20, 1976
Page 4
Subject: Palomar Airport Annexation
LAND USE REGULATION
Since all the territory proposed for annexation is owned by the
County of San Diego, an unusual situation regarding zoning
regulation and development standards is presented. Although
the County is required by Public Utilities Code 21661.6 to
submit plans to the City prior to the acquisition of land for
the expansion or enlarging the Airport, the City has little
actual control of land use and development standards on County
owned property.
Although it may legally and politically be difficult to impose
City standards and regulations on the Airport, a Master Plan for
the Airport has been reviewed by the City of Carlsbad and may
provide adequate guidelines to control development of the Airport.
If greater City control over Airport development is desired, there
are a number of possible alternatives which could be considered.
If it is felt that the Master Plan provides an adequate guideline
for the short term, additional controls could be considered at a
later date.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council desires to proceed with the annexation of the
Airport at this time, it is recommended that the following steps
be taken:
1. Request the County Board of Supervisors to consent to
the annexation in accordance with Government Code 54797.1.
2. Direct the staff to prepare an application for submittal
to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
FRANK N. MANNEN
Administrative Assistant
FNMrmlc
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 24 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 25 of 207
•
•
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-5-
November 2, 1976
The City Manager stated at some point, he felt
a citizen's committee should be formed to look a
Open Space Maintenance Districts throughout the
City, on the whole, in terms of developing stan-
dards for a plan on the kind of slopes to be
maintained, the kind of maintenance to be pro-
vided and whether a district should be formed.
He stated this was an extremely important issue
and more time was needed to revarify some figure
In concluding, he requested guidance from the
Council regarding this matter .
Members of the Council asked questions and ex-
pressed their views on Open Space Maintenance
Districts. ·
It was moved that the matter be continued to
allow the staff to prepare a further report.
City Manager.
[22] 12. AGENDA BILL #3798 -PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXA-
[25] TION.
The City Manager described the boundaries of the
proposed annexation of Palomar Airport and stat-
ed this would just include Palomar Airport,prope
on which an EIR was done for just this specific
piece of land. The North County Animal Shelter
is also included. The area of annexation was
pointed out by Administrative Assistant Frank
Mannen on Exhibit "A" of the Agenda Bill.
Discussion of services which would have to be
provided ensued. Reference was made to an addi-
tional fire station mentioned in the staff re-
port and the City Manager stated this was re-
commended by the Gage-Babcock Report some time ago.
The Administrative Assistant reviewed the analy-
sis of impact on various departments such as the fire department, police department, land use
regulations-planning matters, building permits and building regulations. The City Manager
stated the staff is satisfied that for the type
of operation at the airport, the income appears
clearly to cover the costs anticip~ted in pro-viding service.
It was moved that the City Council request the
County Board of Sup~rvisors to consent to the
annexation and the staff was instructed to file
application with LAFCO pending consent of the
Board of Supervisors.
The City Manager further stated he wished to
clarify a point which might be raised and that
is this action would not cause the City of Carls
bad to assume the operation of the airport; the
City is mere1y annexing the territory. The
County will still maintain and operate the Air-port as it has in the past.
COUNCILMEN
Motion
Ayes
Motion
Ayes
X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 26 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: March 1, 1977 ·--�������
DEPARTMENT: City Manager --�����-=-�----='----
JOINT MEETING
Initial: Dept. Hd. ;, ·--
c. Atty.
C. Mgr.�
City of Carlsbad/County Board of Supervisors �����-��� -���-
Statement.of the Mattei
The County Board of Supervisors has requested that the City of Carlsbad meet with them on April 14, 1977 at 5:30 PM in the Board of Supervisor's chambers for an informal, get acquainted meeting.
The Council might wish to discuss the following items at that meeting:
Planning in County Island
Lake Calavera
Palomar Airport Annexation
Council Action:
3-1-77. Discussion was held and it was suggested that the Batiquitos·Lagoon Court Case and the possibility of the County giving the City some assistance on the disposal site also be discussed.
Exhibit 3
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 27 of 207
I ,-_’ .. j , 0 -0 i
&-;.’ C-r”.L< >?a c. $ -LU 3
I ,< C:g f~pfi3jf c-,? &j-i ~3 Cjiv, CcjGf>c.i i aj~d the Co~:t?t~/ B<J~,C~C~
‘C!% yjijf- 2;; tp’^d-“ -.{.LGf[CC a‘i 2 P.e.i’oil3.i d ..J
~~‘w”t~ f;@ i.le:!cj cjn F&)-gzyy 23, Cj “;y CDi!rici 1 Ci23.j~bpr.s y 202 C St.bn^~_@t ~
~~~~~ei-~~jce b/j -i mi p~@~~~~;l~ rjv?i-\?j<?i% OS: i“,P-;e .; ssties VJ~~C!? ed .tire ~-J!*~~~’p~ (-j-[ [;j< !, S.[)<j 7 o[;a; a,gen.r,j es 3’; j !<e
yea;.:\*;ij ;j3 pq)UI 2
COtjn.;::(, f&;y).r&<: l<:c p’]anrii;-lS fJ -j maf;; 3ii &nd 5l,her
b/2 b yp,krj - &S&lA& i-iii-..
Q q)“.>$Jj,h 2nd t-2 &!:el GpfJ!;cyf.k of -tf$? )-e($ [)C o t- .inj“i.jat.ed by ti: ‘r i? ; 9 TGyL h ;Tt3. ?\?, 9 12 .; - TJ ‘f z, !‘i i”$ j 3 g 2
..
.i;he ~ressf.iyes cf gy<:p~th a1-e not i:niC,uG ‘k.0 any
bej z[i e);rjQrj e;?ced b\/ , ti-:;> .jy f”j.?‘”i ... -.:I 2 Sail Ciego
of any sjr19:te jurisd-ictfon t:: ;-esol:ic these prgjjcins \j,tjl] ]!a.<e im?]jca<;jons foi- s~1;1e 0;- i;77 o-thei- j\jy$sd-ic.t:”ol.is.
it js o.:;;- jntcntjor; th2.i; tiyj s coiqfeyence er:h;:.i.ice frs’ccrgo?le~n:r;en’iai
coo re I‘ :.:3 ti c!fl 0 f p’l i: i7fl -i t? g PP59i” re~j:ic!!!~j?.-/ grc.;,^ch on 2. CilL&l-!L;i
to ad(jr?;.ss the rla:]zgecent of
\J@ ]oak f~y~T.j~;yj i;o see’injr y2rj cfl FeSygasy 23.d,
Co~a i E: i 1 y %
PETE \$!Ij,-SOi.{ p;&S.yo 2’.
City Ac8;n;i.~is.‘irat?:~n i3i.l-i !cil,lg 202 c S.tp@t
Sari Dipgo, ci: 92i~Ci-l Sa3 iliego, CA 92707 (714) 236-6330 (71 4) 236-4740
Cjtjt 6%; Sari Die$:; .- .*
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 28 of 207
0 0. .. T
GRc\ij-i-;; skji.q.;:-j- CQi
2S.E !-j.;qo Cwcn-<y B3a;n.d G'f S:peyy-i
and Cj-ty C~uncjj cf' t)ie f;jky of Sag rJ;e!>o
februa-y 23:. 1277
7306 p.m, Sal? Dieg:, cfty Cownci'i c
Sal? Djep Cj'ey ~~d;i~?;njst~~~~~i
Sat? Diecjo, Calif
Ca] 1 to 0y-de.r. - Roai-6, -cf Supeyvjsors I Cii2.i fi~ai; J~IX Bat II^_.______. -. 7:oo p,r-r?.. 1-
7:OO p*r. XI,
& 0 n f e \-e 12 r, e jS,, d 2 yc $5 ;-
\!elc'3mp and Ci;?nfncl 7- ---p-L __-- L. :
6
A. Hono;-a-jle Pe.te \$-i'ison, j\!ayoy ~f tkts City of' $an Dj
- ' We1 (:o&e al-[(i ;nt..r.ocfi;ct.-i &ri Qf Count-i 1 menb.ys
.. 8. tlonorable Jim 6atesT Chaiman, Sz!i D.iego County Ec subL& -,P>'\dz * soy2
- \~J.~]c~~.~ 2nd {,?ty-oductjo:; (jf mpij:bei.~s of tI.ie ij0ak-d c
Csrlfeyence Oi;cyje\.j S.tsterfi,nt .- Co!2ferenc@ f4odei-a!,
A b;..ief- o!,.;ervje.il: of the puj-pose of the conferenciz the topjcs to bc s-cv,i ewed ai?d. d.-i scuss~d
C,
-
Sta,ff 2t:ei.y.i EyJ Rqjor-t-
ll__lllll
7:15 p,m. 111.
A, L- City of SZE Djggg
1 * City sf Sari Dieao' s Growth Kanaqernent Pi annini
Max Schmidt, Sari Di ego PI ar1:i-i ng Depart!i!ent Daw Ki?$.pp s F-i rrs.ricial Managerwnt Depat-trnznt
.____________'* _l_______l_ ____ 1
- Hjsi~yy: \j]iy the Cjty ja<tfatecj i;F.,e pyogg!.-ay -.A
- pro=^ DescriDt-ion:
to be imp1 ementedll
intended to achieve?
re;ate to other jurisdicti%m, including th other cities and special districts?
- Fiscal and Econotxic Impacts -
\hat are the bas.ic co;
the program and by what proccss are these Ci
__-, ._..__.. I_A _____.__
- Progi-am Goals and Pol ic-ies:
- -_.- Inter&isdic-tSonal - --.-- Impacts: How does the
tdhat is the pri
-.A -----
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 29 of 207
0
A,
0 . p: b. I%'& $1 $4 !."t.'.Ll
2. t"ir: {;yyJg j La pj Se\:Je)- -- Dick King, Director
Rqj'L'yt on j;[)p sJr,;tlJs of th,? m2-;-rc:po'I i -i-;:;1 sel.;icr
- - __ _,. ____.___ --
'uj. ~ .I- ," e k- u"Lj j%<p; Dep
s y s -Len ~
B, CoUfit:' cf S;.p n-;poo $:QO pen‘ .....--i _-_, "2.L __-. ?-
1. &yj;.$h ~Jj~y!~~p~ - Bud GriIjt, Land Use "~r: - .___._--.___- .L_- Dj rector ., Inte Nie7sefir C-irec
&oir,i2il iqLj ty 3 r \J 5 e E s Acj ~1 RCY
i 2. TI ~i i i: 9 0 f f 7: c ~3 ; il a. v 1' d C e
I: ronxenta'l iim!ysi s Divi s-i
R2pcr-t on the ptii-posfi ~f th2 t.cur, the types o'i growth msnagement system t-evi wed crid s-i gri fic:
2. Sa;: Cieao Coi naaerreni: PI ami n2 Pi.
findiii~s ai7d Coi>Cl LIS~OIIS b
________ d _____ .-d---- I_.--- ---- Rat-p-iy i;g.r-! bg 1 PI ar;n; rrg Dr rcctcr:
Integrated P
effci-ts to tiate, tl?e status of these efforts,
Desc:\-j rjt.joi3 ef t]:p Cci~nt.y' s Ci3co!+/.?.1? Ma.;agemen% P7
..
8:30 p.m. C, Corriprehznsive P1~nnl;na OrGnjzatio17: ____ _______ T5e ____ 208 ___-- Waste\,
____I. Maria:jcm~nt -.----.i._-_7_-- PI an:!i no Pronrarn - Ken St;l zer, DepiItY Ex: Bi rector
gpSCj-'i;ptfot: of -the 298 ymrk prc;g:-am, it..; status and
relationship to groxth management planning programs
0:45 p.m. B. - Local AgeilcY Fcl-fil :_n_e Spk=rz of Influ!
faifiocjt.ai~~ - l4.i ke GO
Descr$p-tion of the LAFCO Sphere of Pnfi uence ,Prc;grai
its statu:; and its relationship to the 209 Program growth irianagemei:t pr.ograms I
!:e Direc'cor, LAFCO --
9:oo p.m. Coffee Break
9.15 p.m. IV e €joai*d 2nd CciiiTc-i'l Disc~ssfon
--_l__l
A. Affirm the eslab7ishment of a policy task force inc elected representatives frm; the City and Cosnty of
Diego arid other cities for. the purposes of coordina
growth managen;eiit pl am i ny .
Ljetermine the compesition of the po'ljcy task force.
DSrect .the policy task force, as its first order of
business and with the assistance of the Executive Steering Committee, to develop a program for coordi
gro~th management pjanni ng.
E,
C.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 30 of 207
% e 0 A f.?. * I, 6 u L p.: VF,
13. -ji..-f:...* <=.,, <{c-t the policy t;ps% farce -in deve'1opii-q a pro:
/- lor .c.r,ordi r2atiioi-i to .r..evi e~ arid make re~c;~~~ndati OG~
deemed iippropi-iaie, on the fol lo\t[ing:
,- existing Cj-iy 2nd Coul>ty ~'Ca-7~' ,r-ri-~cj~ fund-iag and wc
pragratns for gr.owth managemnt p'lannir.ccg,
r;efit. (Jf zpo, the cthc-?i* citai.:s 9 !J,FEl arid special
- Snterjurisdictiona7 cco;+in~tion incl ~dir;g the .:I
d .j s t., .i ,,, + i- &%., '" s e
70:30 p'n, v. Concl U5-i on arid P,d journnei-it - Conference Pbdea-3.t~~
G
..
..
..
I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 31 of 207
..-./+ ...-- 1 ..-IT
UC T;3. j ;tT? .- o e- 'I ?.
rwq. ~~27 1 iy hl rwr T\,F,' rp) 1~: 2d: A ]-\J TJ:, 1
1' A.
~.~~ r2-
,Ld !#=.m, X%*./ /A 'Z
SAW DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 * (714) 236-2248
BO/I.RU OF SUPERVISORS c I600 PI,CIFiC HEGI-iWA't"
TOM WAF&ll-i-ON
SUPERViSOR
FIRST DISTRICT
February 9, 1977
- TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Tom Hamil-to2
SUBJECT: Redistricting of Supervisorial Boundaries
Prior to the Supervisory elections in 1978, I would propose
to accomplish the necessary redistricting as a result of
recent population changes and pursuant to County Charter
provisions (Section 5) and State lab: (Government Code Sectio 25000, et seq.).
Supervisor, First District
RECOI~BIENDAT r ON :
1.
.
Establish a task force'comprised of staff repre-
sentatives from each Supervisor's office
(presumably the Executive Assistant), Registrar of Voters, and.appr0priat.e Coirnty staff as selected by the Chief Administrative' Officer-. This task for or cornrnittee would be chaired by the fomer Registr of Voters, Charles Sexton, an.d seek any legal advic
.. as deemed necessary Zrom Co~znty Counsel.
2. Direct the task force to seek the necessary input from the various cities 5 key special districts p
. . . and community groups in a series of public meetings prior to their final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors .on August 16, 1977.
3. Direct that prog-sPess reviews be schedujed after the second month--April 12, 1977--for the Board's appro' of the criteria selection, and at the end of the fourth month--June 14, 1977-:for a complete status report.
.
..
^.."... 1 .... .-.I.. (. " - .. . . .. -- .... " .. .. .-.. .. -.. . , -. . . - . ..- . . . . . . ..
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 32 of 207
1 r 0 -a
Bo2-r.d of Supervisors -2- February 9,
4. Instruct the task force to foELow census tracts,
e%ection precincts and/or political subdivisions time, o city boundaries) in their redistsicting
proposals whenever possible c
Discussion:
In orckr to a.iroid the past difficulties in the redistricting
take the process out of the political arena by performing the necessary work in an off-election year, and under the chairmanship of the former Registrar of Voters, Mr. Sexton. This would provide a clear del-ineation of boundaries in all
districfs for supervisorial candidates well in advance of the 1978 election.
public input prior to any finalization of the redistricting plans in a series of scheduled public meetings which would
include cities, major special districtss, and community groups. Also, it would be my hope that each new district
wou1.d be designed to include whole poli-tical subdivision such as. cities (with the obviorrs exception of the City of
San Diego) and various local ccmmunities on a subregional basis, icec2 North County, Ez-st County, South Bay, etc.
Section 5 of the County
.. process9 it is ny belief that these recommendations will
In additton, we would receive the necess
County Charter Provision: ~ZEGZ-sx~res that the Board of Supervisors may and shall, after each Federal decennial census,
redistrict in accordance with State law and. this
Charter provision. Specifically, this'section
requires that at least two districts shall corriprise
areas outside of the City of San Diego. provj-sion currently relztes to Supervisorial Distrit:ts z and 5.
. Stet@ Law Provision: Goveminent Code Section 25009.. e 3 stateS--tTaz any time between the decennial census , tRe Board of Supervisors may redistrict based on popul-ation estimates that 23-c certified by the State
Bepariment of Finance (betwcen Flay LO and June 15,
1977)-
a redistricting proposal must comply with the provisions of Section 25001 which requires that such changes in boundaries crezze districts as nezrly equal in populatio
as possible. In addition, the following factors may als
be considered: (a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohe-
siveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of
. territory, and (d) community of interests of the distric
This
_x_
In addition to County Charter Section 5, such
. -- --- -.. - __ _".-----. . -- --.-_. .-- - -----...-- - - I '- - . . --* ---
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 33 of 207
0 .a
Board of Su2emiscrs -3- February 9,
1.11 addition, the Board may zppsint an advisory com- mittee to study redistricting proposals undcr Sections
25001,5 and 31000.1 of the Government Code. This zdvisory committee concept is encompassed wizliin
recommendations I and '2 which will receive the necessa- public input from various local sources through schedu
meetings. Concerning the time frane for this study,
Section 25002 of the Goverrment Code states that
redistricting must be completed within 90 days prior to the final date for voter registration for the
The completion Zate of Augrrst 16, 1977 for the task force's recommendation will certain]-y meet the statuto
requirements of this Section and afford sufficient tinc f~r fureher study and reevaluation if desired. by the Board- e
-- - Supervisorial election, or by early February 1978,
Fiscal. Tmpzct: -_I It is my understanding that 3fr. Sexton wi14.
in a completely voluntary role and \<if1 receive no payment his services. Concerning :he other task force members, the.
be comprised of County staff and thus wi%i require no speci,
appropria-Lion for funding. Concerning the various public nc and orher related costs involved, these ~iould, in riiy opinioi nominal and could certainly be absorbed within the current 1 rimits *
-.-
-*' 6 'b4//4 $1 qzq?f__q
Tom KamiXton Supervisor, First District
-. TH : tu
cc: Cha-P-les E, Sexton Mayors and Slanagers of the Incorporated Cities Chief Administrative Officer County Counsel
Registrar of Voters I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 34 of 207
P a* :'.
I' t.
.. "% -.A . S&>-p,; BXZC.-j. (g-JupjT'y '
syh,%D OF cL\ALHFQ.y<I,;k
.. . c----
WE, the PsorIe of t.he Counly of San Diego, do ordd.in sad establish for its govern- ment this cEr,P*R:rEE -
.. ARTLeLF, K
. ._ COUNTY PO&ljEIIS ihND X1GfQT.S
SE@TIOX 2: The County of Sm Diego. as it now exists. is a body corp3rafe arld politic and as such has all the Dowers specified by the Constitution an6 laws oi . '. the Sate of Czlifornia, and by this Chartx. icclu@icg any riaii!s Lo acquire and
.. oporzte public utilities in the r.z?iier mat I~W b.3 pr0vide.d by general law. aIid such other powers as are necessarily implied.
.
SECTYBK 2: The corporate name shall be
"COUNTY OF SkH DIEGO"
which must be thus designated in all zctions and groceedinqs touc!iing its corporate tights, properties 2nd du:ies. The Soundaries oi the Co.~nt.y shall 3e end remain 3s the same zre nor:. descrised ar,d set io:lb in Seclion 2313'3 of LLs GoVDinKIeIit Code of tlie State of Cz!ifo:nia. uatil c!ianged in the mamer provided by Zensrzi law. The County Seat shzll be zn3 remxn in :he City of Sm Cie:s uzti! ckinged in the manner provided by general 1zw. (Aiende~. effective Januzv 22. 1953)
SECTION 3: The Doviers m:r,tioned in Section 1 hereof. cm be exercise6 sn!y by a Board of Sxpervisors cons?s:inz of five memaers. or DX azents mci officers act- ing.under their au:hority, or by auiktoioiiiy of law. or DY this Chartnr.
AR.T&CLE EL:
GUPER"t'1 so it. 01 STEtE cx s t6 s D EL ECX 10 s s
SEXXIOM 4: The County of Szn Diego is divided into five (5) Snperuisor Districts which iJe es:aS!ished ;LS provided by general law an3 ;;ecticn 5 of this Cfia:ter. (Amended, effective Janzvy 22, 1963)
SEmXON 5: The Boxd of Supervisors ma. hereafter. and shall o€t.er each FPdeiai decennial census. change the Soundar:es ot tne Sunerviso:inl Districts in Ezcoran:icp in izaking any sucn cli;l~fi(~ the Board of Supervisors s:iall so iiivide tr.2 tael area of !h? Ccunty that. to ik? extent that popuietion will permn!t, at :east tivo oi such d!s:ric:s snail conrpiice eretis wtside of the City of S3n Diego except for such s?izil pcjrtions of tza; city LS mzy be . . included in giving consideration to the factcis aurr.or:zed by gcncrzl law. F'ailure of the Bovd of Supeiv!scrs to tcdlstiict the Coucty in ci;? rnmner provided Dj- general hiw and by this Charter wirhin one vex ai:er each Federal decex.ial census snali constitute misconduct in office. (Ane.ded, effective Jmuuy 22. 1963)
. with the Iaws at the State of Cniifornia 2nd this Ckmer.
e.
..
.... .. ..
... , 1 ,. ... .- . .,.
..
.. -,
.. ..... ., ..
-7. ..
_. R@tpiS=Ecd 1-43 ..
.. ..
,. .. .. ' ,
* .. ... .. 1 ..\ .
.. ..
*.
... ... .. .. .. ...... ..... . . . 7.,.-.-*..- -. ". .... .. .. ..-- - .* --.. ..... -." ...... - I ....-_. ._ . .'--'..-.---.-.-.--..--.. ...--....--.-..?- --.- ..--.. ..- -.-.---- ---_ -__, __.._.___." _____ . .- ... - - -._I.__ ........ ,- . _,.,__
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 35 of 207
..
*e .. 0
---72 . .. ..
8 2,Rgoo GO”ERhrME,NT OF CeUNrTZs
.. -. .-4. Qaeamies. $$250f&-25052
5. Meetinp $$ 25OS0-25053
6.
7. Ordinances. $3 2512Q-25131
8.
10.
Clerk of the Board. $5 25103-254.05
Publication of Notice and Proceedings. $5 25/50, 2Sj.51
Chmpeilsatioa. 5s 25 f 89, 25 I8 1 [RepddT; ‘ 9. Subpenas. $5 251’70-25176 .
~ ..
.. . ARTICLE 1
Genera1
..
..
Q 25033. Nwaber of supervisors: Number to be elected at same election: Ciassifia.
0 25031. , Boundaries of supenrisori31 districts: Change: Vote required: Equrriity of
0 25W’t.l. ljoiinaznes of supervisoilal distficts: Adjustmerits 5 25031.2. Supenisorial reuistncti:iF commissicn: Compensaticn 4 25031.3. 13:ov.ridxy adjcsrment on basis cf census 6 25031.4. Population figures used for bowdary adjusrmerics: Action for dedaratory
relief 0 25831.5. Advisory conmiltee on hundaq changes: Aufhorizaticn EG appint,
membership, erc. 5 25032. Continuance of supervisor’s term of office: Limitatiori on time of ‘wund-
ary change before or between elections 8 25033. Rules and regulations
g25W. Seal 4
. 0 25035. Quorum: Vote necessary 3 25036. OaThs ’ 0 25037. 0 25GOoS. 0 25039. [Rcpdedf
tion: Term of ofice
popuiation: Othcr facrors
. .
Attendance at meetings of State Supervisors’ Assaciathi
Traveling expenses outside coilr~ty
0 $2SSOO, Number tiT supe~~isors:, Number’ to be elected at sane
election: Cfassificcfion: Term of ofice
Each county shall have a board of scpervisc~-s. consisting of five members. Not more than three members shall be elccted at the same general election. if tiit: terms of ozce of more ehan three members of
the bozsd expire ai the same lime, at the first regular meeting after Sawwry Est folio win^ their election the members so elected .shall SO
classify themselves by lot that three members shall sewe foot four ye2.1-5~ and two for two years. Theseaftecr the tern of ofice of each
Add,& Stab 1947 ch 424 Q 1.
mor Enw: Bxd 06:
.(a] Harmer FoI C $4027, as add& by Swts 1’30’7 ch 282 5 1 p 564, arncndd by Stats 1939 c;h
168 g 1 p 2% ‘ ..
. -
. .
member shall be four years, . .. .. ... ..
.I -. ... . ..
,. ...-. ..-.- . .. . . .. . . _. - ... . _- --.-- ,.
..
.-.. . + .
., .. , .. ..
* ..
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 36 of 207
0 e’ .>
..
OrnlCERS 0 2500fi
@) Stats 1899 ch 277 Q 14 p 45s.
(c) Stat$ 1893 CII 234 $ 13 p 349.
(8) Stzts 1891 ch 216 $ 13 p 297.
(e) Seats IS83 ch 75 9 13 p 301, a.s amended by Sta!s 1889 cb 205 Q 1 p 233.
Cross References:
County officers gencrs!ly: $$24W e: seq.
Wen supervisors to be elec~d: 4 21202.
Classification and terms of oriice of supervisors of newly created county: 4 24203. Change of ypervisorial district boundaries 2s no: aifecting ten11 of oilice: 0 25032. “Gcneral election”: EIec C 5 23. .
GollatcrA References:
Cal 3ur 2d Counties 4 22. Mcl(inney’s Cal Dig Counties $4 51 et seq. 56 Am Jur 2d Mmicipal Coi-porations, Counlies, and Other Political SuMkisions $0 189-192.
kftorney General’s Opir?ions:
21. Ops Atty Gen S4 (supervisor’s risht to liold o%ce and simultmeously serve %S
24 Ops At;y Gen ISS iauihority of member or county board of supervisors to hold
tn5tee of union high school district).
office of general manager of pubiic utililies district in his county).
h’0l-B OF DECIEI:(ZxS
After expiration of his temi and election and county, ofT?cen, and mdowed with munkip.1 fmc- qualification of his successor, supervisor who at- tions, unknown to thc fornier Ccunry Gcvemmait
tmpts to act as sucti is mere nzkd usurper. Act of 1883, and were sepra?e and 41. Trinity County v hlcCammon (1863) 25 C 117. the county bozrds of supxvisors cjtabl~s !a:trr act. People v Babcock (1896) 114 l’ht term of oftice of thc three suynisors in each I, 818, county who were eiectcd at the general election in
IS92 expired, under the former County Govern-
merit ~~t of 1893, on the first ~~~d~~ after the
The iormrr County Governnent Act did not aP?iY 10 the city and CouRty of Sari Fr~J?~i~-
hiartin v Election Cornrs. (1893) 126 C +X-, 58 P
932.
ne fact that a board of supervisors may exercke
judicis1 functions does not make it an inferior must within the meanilia of the term zs err.p!oyed
in the Consririition relative to apFiiate junximion
of !he supefior courIs. ~f~,~~ v supenor colla (1909) 156 c 478, 105 p 580; lnglin y ~~~~j~~ (19%) 155 C 483, I05 Y 582.
Bosrds of supervisors are not courts. ~~echztn, In
first day of January, iS97. ard thcir succccsors
were to be elected a! the general election heid in Nov~&~, 1896. H~[~ v ~~~~tti~~~ (1896) 114 c
112,45 B 1M3.
ne bard of SuixNisOn constitutes a generd
governiq lwdy within the domain of loa1 county
governmental aTairs. Han% v Gibbim (!896) 114 c 418,46 P 292. .
ne sup-visors of SUI ~rancisco, auti~orizd by
Lfie Cormlidatiori Act, were municipa:, not re (1328) 90 CA 700, 266 P 585.
4 mQE. Borrndaries of supervisorial. d,istricb: a1anmge: vote required:
%Udity a; population.: Other fsctors
F~Ihing each decennial .federal census, 2nd using population figures
es validated by the Poouiation Research Unit of the Department of Ek-ce as a basis, the board shall adjust the boundaries of any or ail of h supervisonial districts of the c,o~naty so tixit the ciislricts shail be
as n-rdP.ly equal in population as may be. En establishing the bounaa- ~cs of the distkcts the board may give consideration to the following
505
9 ..
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 37 of 207
e. *. - . . .-. . ._
... .. .. . . . ,. __ .._______ ...
0.-
‘0 .I -. .. .. ,.
..
5 25808 CQQERLTMiEi\rY OF CUUh2XZj
fkctors: (a> topography? (b) geography, (c) &hesiveness, contiguiejt, integrity, arid compaclness of territory, and (d) community sf inter- at$ of the dislricts.
’
&&kd Stars 1947 ch 4-24 $ 1; Amcnded Sbts 1st Ex Sess 1964 ch 21 $ I; Stars lY7?,-.’)4 ci,
806 8 4. ch 4-0 $ 1; Suts 1570 ch 361 Q 1.
FTba L3.x Based ox
(z} Former Po! C $4029, as addcd by Skits 1907’ ch 282 3 E p 35-a.. ~mcded by Stats li).i3 ch
995 Q I p 2910.
(b) Spzts 1897 ch 277 $16 p 455.
(c] SWs 1893 ch 234 $ 16 p 349.
(15) Stars I891 ch 216 $16 p 297.
{e) Sms 1383 ch 75 3 16 p 303, as mend& by Stas 1889 ch 206 $ i p 233.
-L- ..
. <
G
hendmmts:
19&4 Amci16:nent: Amended the first sextence by (I) Subsiitutir?? “Foliowing each decennial fedcral census. 2nd usin: the census as a hasis, t!ie board sha!l adjust” 65r “By a two-thirds vole of rne members. tne board may chmge”; (2) substirut- big Yhz“ for “a” after “districts or”; (3) adding “so thai” aicei “county”; and (<) adding “, but in anv case s‘; rhrit the pcpulsticr~ of every dstricn wh~n added to the population of any 0:i:L.r two distr:crs tqu-is at least 59 pcrcenL of the
population of the county” at the end oi the sentence. ,1390 Amendment: Dt!etcd “. bu: in any czx sc hi the r;opulztion of every district when zdded to the popuhuon of en? otiicr tw.0 distmcs equ-is at lczsz 50 percent
oftlie pop~lation of thc coun:y” 31 the end of the first sentence. E373 Amcndmcnt: Substituted “r;opui?!icn tirures zs vaiidnted by the Poputztion Rwmh Unit of the Departmeili oi Financc” for “the W~SUS”.
Wc &omrnissione~r’ Note:
Fox-fifths vote of the board of siipervisors is silt ueed for tfic mathcrnariczUy
bpssible two-thirds.
Cross Xeferences:
Division of new county into supervisorial districts: !j 23361. Effcet of change of boundaries hjf supervisoriai disrects: 4 25MZ.
&I S’ur 2d Counties 4 32.
McKinney’s Cal Dig Counties $ 57.
Cdaterel References: .
.. 6 56 Am Jur 2d Municical Coporsrions, Coun.ries aid Other IZofihI SuW.%sbm @ f6S, 189, 193, 195, 353, 541, 546, 548.
Federal Census generally: 13 USCS $5 I et sq
. . Lsw Resiew A;.ricks.= ..
Rmappnionmcnt in CkEonGz cou~tiej. 4. Smea Clara. 7.w 204
fT Ops Atty Gen 133 (comDe!ling county su~ien~isos by initiative gXtitI091 t5 redistrict county where fh-y have othenvise fa:!& to act). 19 Ops .4tty Gen 94 (submitting initintivc yetilion to county bard of suydcn proposing revision of supm~isosiai districts in counsy where there are pssrble defects in the mesure). 31 Op At!). Gan 88 (when and how county supervisor districts in Sacramcntc: County bc altered on anncx3:lon of are2 to City of Sxrarnento; cikct of change In &unda~ies of supervisor districrs on eli~ibility of incumknt to hold office and wsident be candidate ior suFmsor: rcquiremcnt that changes in bundari6 of supemisor districts of Szcraniento County be dane so rnar at least two of five &&cts consists of arcs lying wholly outside Cily of Sacramientc,. -
.
. Attorney Gencrd’s Opinlbns:
.. .
.
.‘ 502 *
’. . f. . ..
..
. .. ’
.. . .-I.-
, .. :
,. .
.I .. .. ..
..
,. .. ,. ..;, , ... , _. ,. .. ..-... .-’ ’ ’.”
.. . ’. ..
.,
,.
_. . .. ’. . ,’ ./ . ’ , ’. ..
’ . .: . ’. ,.. . ..
,.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 38 of 207
8 e 0
..
OFHBCERS 8 25ZOk
36 Ops Atty Gen 236 (erect of Electiov. Code $ I620 in preventing zmendmcrit or repeal by voters of initiative ordinance previously adopted which es:ablished. county supervisorial districts ii ordinance conkins no provision for arnendmcnt 01'
FepCdf.
NOTES OF: DEaSLOxh'S
1. In General
2. Ccnstmciion, Interpretation, and App!ication;
3. Bo-Jndaries, Mattes Fer~ainiiig IO; Movement
4. Qualiiy of Population
5. Discretion of hard
6. Evidence
7. Presumption
8. Mandamus
9. App! and Error
E. In Gencis.:
fn redistricting cases, funciion of state Supreme
Coud under decisioiis of US Supreme Cout? is to
sure adherence to requirements of eaual protec- tion cIause, iiOt to rrso!,,e purejy po]itical ques- tions also inherent in legislative apportionment.
Miller v Sa:lta Clara Coun,y (i965) 63 C2d 343,
46 CM Rptr 617, 405 P2.d 857.
9,. ~~.~~~~~~i~~, lnterpre,P.tion, z3s hpplicr-.ljon;
rural board nicmber and urban population would be represented by tirb.7.n member. Gri5n v Monte-
rey County (1964) 60 C2d 751, 36 Cal Rptr 6IG,
3SS P2d 8S8.
In determining whether facts relztin~ to topga-
phy, geography, cohesiveness. arid ccrnrnuni!y of
interests are suficient to warrant extent to which
county ordinance redistrictins ccunty supervisorial districts deviates from requirement of equality of
population, each case must tx considered by irseif
' on basis of a!! hits and circurnstaoces prrsent
wirh regard to particular county, and dispan!? of
population resulting from one ordinnnce wi!I nct
ncccssarily be sustaincd in other c3ses. GfiiSn v
~;f~~~~~~~ county (1964) 60 ~2d 751, 36 ai xpCr
616, 38% p2.j 888,
In d=temiI!ing whether diW'itS in po?ulation
bet-xeen county supavisorinl dislricrs under redis-
tricting Grdinance \aiola.tes equal pro;ection ciause of fe5eraJ Constitution, COUR will look not only to
factors enumerated in this section that permit
deviation from rcviremenn of ew:W of ~via-
. tion, but also to fact that county governments
peribnn nurnber of important functions ior unin- corprated 8rc3s which 3re ordinafily ptlt-omed
cnt:rely or j,, large part by city governnients in ir,xVorated ~TCRS. which nlay justify favoring la populOus, primnri1y rural djsl,icrs, ~nfi~ v hion-
lcrey aunty (1964) a C2d 751, 36 ~1 itptr 614,
Validity
or Change in Population
Vdidihy
In construing illtention of supervisors in enacting
ordinance crating supervisorial dktncis of Te-
hama County, it niust k assumed bard intended to &strict all territory of county, whether land or
water. People v 'Williams (1916) 29 CA 552, 156 1'
682. 388 P2d 888.
Partitioning of territory of county into supervisu- I~ reappnioning suvmiqoriai districts of ~2nt;n
rial districts is no: grant in sense that such term is Clara County, no district may depart from ideal
used in cc 5 830, PI'oviding (hat except where size (20 per cent of tot31 county population) by
grant under land is held indicares diKe:enI in:ent. . nlore than 15 per cent, &<iller v ~arita cbra .
Omer of upland, when it bordeis on navigsble County (1965) 63 C2d 343, 46 G.1 Rptr 615, .fcs lake ar stream, whcre there is no tide, takes to p2d 857.
A 2 to 1 disparity in population between most edge of lake or stream, at low water mark. I'eople
ppulous and least ppuious supervisorial discricts v Williams (1916) 29 CP. 552, 156 P 882.
If SupMsorhl districts were prxticnlly equal in of county violatcd consl1tationai dictates whcre
popufation and an ordinance escablishinp their 6istnctin-g of county ~~ns priniariiy compelled by
' boundaries w2s passed, subsequen: ineaua!ities desire and +as rcsult of effon to preserve tradi-
Pesulting from movement OF the population would tional piitical sibdivisions, rather than to foliow
Sot render the ordinance inidid. Hamelt v Sacra- f3cton pcncritxd ia this section, or by US Su-
mrnto County (1925) 195 C 676, 235 P 445. preme Court in its application of the equal protec-
auntgr or&nance rcdistfictine cou,,ty sunewiso- tion clause in redistricting ases, and Mhere km-d
rie,l districts, ttlouEh not actiievjnS equaiity of of suprviwors' rcliaiice on geographical consdera-
popolation in d,stricts, did not violnte 'this seclion, tions to support disparity was unjustiiicd. hfiller v
Where the ratio between dislricts of highst and Sam Clara G)urlfY (1965) b3 C2d 343, 46 cd
h*cst popu!ation was slightly more than 2.2 to I, RPtr 617i 405 P2d 85'7. . ' where majority of board members would lx Deviarion from pqmlation of ideal supen-isorial
Ckted from districts haikg majority of popula- ' district in Santa Clara County (one with 20 per
con. and where boundaries were so drawn that . cent of population) ranging from 20 pcr ccnt in
earr;fi&y rural papulation would b; able to clect largest. district to 38.4 per cent in smallcst did not
.
903
'I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 39 of 207
...... ..- e * *.
I.
0 ..
.'
.' ..
0 25091 GQptERMMElT OF COTJNTl~
comp?y v,<!h ap;)lic?.bIc hv.' and viis not justified by nonpopulatiori factors where boi:ndary zdjust-
men& neww.rj to :;ve substnntial ccusliiy among
districts did not rcquire radtc-i changes and did not appcar to result in unnatura! rcrntoriai &vi-
$ions. ,?Xil!cr v Szn~ Cisr.? COU:I!~ (1955) 63 C2d
343,46 Cal Rptr 617, 404 PZd 857.
hijon $a rlot require only that population of
~ny district. when added to popil]?~ions ci any 1'30
other districts, eq~~ai at ]est 50 per ccnt of total
&CCS not only "cq.;al 2s may be" rcquirernent of
mwte but a!so gives no rtioprion !o constiru-
tiond rcquircments rhzt well c~y go beyond p:o- visions of sta!u:e. &filler v Smra Clara Cousty
(t965) 63 C2d .33, 46 Crtl Rprr 617, 195 P;d 857.
su~fisors for l!ic disln'cIz involved. Wi!Fsir Y
Inyo County (1966) 65 CZd 314, 5.1 a. R~J 320,
419 P2d 440.
4. Equality of Poptllation
prac:icaf equaljty oi Imopu!ation jn the suFn;Ffi
Ti31 districts 1s not z purciy 10~31 nl:i:crs but it is z:
vi;3i pa:t of th: governmental struai::e which h~s
berm csrablishcd in the muntics , and must be
adhcrcd to if consistency in fom is to k rnzii-
UinPCi !hroi:ghout Inc State. I<.XCclt Y Sacramen:o
Qo-nty (1925) 195 C 676, 235 I' 445.
,ipF.onjonn:snt 2ccording to populatiOl, undcr lhis
SRCIICn is pnn2rl/ roal in reci51Ecting, and olhcr racIOrs enumerated nlly t;e p,,en cnly su'xldjary,
ciT<ct and ~2n~ioz ~'3rr2nt iarze dtuiar!ons irom
equa!irV OF Vpu!aiion. Gfi:En Y bionttrey Coilnty
(1963) 60 CZd 318, 33 Cal Eptr IO!, 3% Ptd 221. c~~~~~~ board of sKpcNiscrs is vnc;er duty to
recjistrict county accordin! IO stzndlird p70v:dd hy rhis section rvherc one d!srhct encompzs:nz 50 ycr ccnt of elecrorz!e h3S same represtn12110n as zr,o:'ner containing only 11.5 yr cent; such a!\px-
it? constituTcs drxtic drviarlon from cG..;ai:tS. of
pc.suinticn required by chis secticn and cL?r.ct be
~~iiiltd on 03~15 of c!her faciors enurnerslcd m
thz! seclion. GriZ-in v hlonrerev County (1963) 69
C2d 318, 33 Cai Rptr 101, 3% PM 421.
5. D;SCP<~~OII Gfn0316
Section. by providing that county bard of supcr-
visors "ma)." chanre supc.erv:sonal d!sI~C: bun&-
ncs, docs not lc3~e rn3t;er of red:stncting enxireiy
to bawd's discre!ion and don not mzn ?kat
.bard umot be required to rdisrrict however
uzrcasonnble 1:s recuss1 to do SO ma)" be, sL-a
siatute, in setting forth primary srand~d lo 'x applied. LISS rnanoatory lany25c- that distncts
"shslt be" 2s ns2rly equal in pcpuia!ion s may
be; diicretion $veri board ci supervisors to dec!de
...!,et?,er redjs:nclinF has &.omc ntesary to
cor.fom 1o stand3rd ser fonh in rirts sec?!on is r:ot
unlimilited, 2nd whe:e there are drastic drviilions
{rcm equality of population. reiusai fa rtdistnct is
abuzc of discrcricn. Gn5n v hfcntcrey Ccilnly
... county popul-:ion, si-ce. such cons[rxc:ion ne- '. .
..
~,ud protection of law ssurs reprcsentstiv~
voting 20 electors of ccunty aj %ell as 10 eiecrors of state as whole. Miller v Sania Clara County
- (1965) 63 ad'343, 46 13 RP' 617, '105 P2d 857-
3. Dm-daries, hfztfcrs Peitrjcilg to; hlomwxt
h&hoi!gh a proposed cidinsncc to char,_re thc hnndanes or =me of tkc sumwisoriai uistricts of
F. county would rsujt in iess ~ncqunlity thm now
exists, and the cour.ty shouic be redi\tnc+d so ;li
to avoid piacnt mcoua.i:r!es. ibis wccld not justiiy
PJ~ ordiaancc ivhich p:ovidn ior cross inequnl!ilcs. IIarnrrt \< Sacrament:, Guaty (1325) i3j c 676,
235 P 465.
No p&tivc ,juty is imp& on boa;& cf ~upw& mn hO change rhc bur,dancs ci suwmisnfisl dktk<C:s by rwOn of incq331iues rauliir;y from
fie movement oT chanpc in Dopui3:!on, pe:?son v
sari M~~~ county (1~1s) 93 cx cia. 269 p 745; E)&cr v ShaU County (193:) 130 CA 745, 20 "2d 726
Reappnionnxnt of su~ewisorial districts in Santa
.
or Change in i'opulation
,
axa GWnrY mjY vall"Y Ix based 071 IWJ feci-
em1 census. Milkr v §ant3 Clara County (1965) 63
t2d 343, 46 Cal Rprr 617, 405 P25 857.
Tbe natura! barrjers in Inyo Coaniy of Pmzmist
Mountain i(ar.:s and Dc~h Valley. which isolate
. Entirely within rhe least popuious Fiiih District,
ea.irco: b= des:xrO :o require a part!cular division & Evidence
bct.xecn suFr.isoT-;al distxkts: nor Go such barn- Evidenx r123t *hr p,u:aiian .mt;o htwctz t eS pse any burd-n in cxpmding the Fif:h DL- countyss most and 1c3Sl Fpulous dist"c;i is 3.G evict to ultirnscely incr-ae is relative pcpuiatioa. fo 1. thlL [he pce:ilat,on is conwniratc. il n 'Wduie v Inyo C3unt). (1356) 65 C2d 314.. 5-4 C-d valley with ex:e~:s!vc narional forest prescr~a On Rp"s 320,419 P2d 440. &:her side. thnt a large ara a; one end of rhe
Though a county's el~tors sated prima Izie valley licr within a naval sbtion. and that sku1 grounds for rtlicf by dcmonstrarlny that rhe ppu- one-tnird of thc county is in 3 ns~iona! nonrir.:d
b&On distxhution smong supccru:sonal a~strkts area docs not nrasaniy prccl*Jdc 3 ppu!3Uon
fidd to mcst the seandxd rccuirins that no distnbutlon amonq disrncts within prcsumptlve
QisWkt conrain more than 23 percent nor less than lixits, rt-auinny that IIO district contlin more ria X'ii ptrccnr of a couaty's overall po;iuia.aon, no 23 perwnr or I~S than 17 pcrcenr or he CD~~Y'S
&tdktrkting mafd k completed beicrc inmd- overal1 po~uktrron. Vv'ilrsic Y fnyo County (1966)
stdy g,llding gmtA clc&uons bo srlccg county 65 CZd 314. 55 Cd Kptr 320,419 PZd 440.
Q relzrively sniail panions of the popu!nIion and lie (1963) 60 C2d 315, 33 Cd Rp~r 101, 334 P2d 421. .
$04
..
.. .:_. . :
.. . , .. ..
.. .. ..
... ... J' * .
.. .I
.... ... .. ..
. , ..
.. ... .-.. . ... ..
,. ... .. .. .. ..... .. - - -, p: .... .*.-..- ........ ---.. ... .........__.. - .,.._..___...__ ............. ..
.- -. February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 40 of 207
z IO,. * .
..-. ...._.. - i . ..- .,
0’
-_ ..
.. * QFFICERS 8 25001.”2
To %7rfs.zrnpd,io3 8. hIan&rk¶us
For rcapwo?,ior;meni of Guc supervisorial distric:s Mandamis will not lie to co-yl a rddistricting d
$Q Santa Cl~rz, County to & entitled to prrsun:p the County inlo su:xrvisorial d:stnc:S equzl in Gon ofvdicjiiy, no district s]]a]! contain mort nh-n pp3]2~!OZ. I’C!eZOn V S!:X\la CoVIlt)’ (1913) 93
23 pr CCnt nor less thrill 17 per cent of over?.~l Ch 4% i69 I’ 733: Dozirr v Shssta Gxnry
pp~stion of cou:irl;; adhsiencc to such fiTura (1923) 130 CX 746, 20 1’~ 726-
will insurc that rxijoiiiy of counis box6 of SU~G- vkx-s wiii lx clcctrd by no less rh3n 54 -.w cent ’e Appeal md Error
of tot21 ppulsiion. Miller v Sant3 C!xi (‘965) 63 C2d 34j, 46 &l Rprr 617, Soj i’zi 857. tory \Vi1 Of m2nda:e lo comy?el rcliiir;lr?cnt Of {he
su~Msoria1 d:stncts oi El Dorxo Cosnry, uherc The Supreme Court camot presume the propnety l..+I . a-k, ?!ion rnsrerially cbsznn< rke 13w goverwne of F. 5.46 io I population rstio bcrween rile most rz&t+ir.e of sl;~~~isonal d:s;ncrs w;ihin cc3n- an2 Icast ppulous supervisorial districts !n Inyo t:ts inteTvrned tc,wcch lj,p d2:e oi !uclTcnr 2nd Ckunty. fresenarion oi lradirionai poiiricd sub2i- !he heanni: on apnt21, tht zFFz;ia:c cOun re.s:eu.ed dsions and the ifirczniy 2nd ccnt:yrty of exishg the record, consisLjnz oi iiIIje mere ii12n th*
Constituencies in the coirnty do not justify ~pu!a- jrd;m.nnt roli, w,~~ou~ r~c34iin2 z:J2menra:lon, -tion dispar;.:i& Sejond t!:e presumprwe hi:s, prccumed that the oral ev,d?r.ce r:,::civcd by tSe
. pcquiring that no district contain more rhzn 23 trjrj COCR sus:sined i:s !I;rJzneni, !z:! exor appr.
percent nor less than 17 percent of a couniy’s ins on the Caw of the
-_
ynty In ce:emining appxl]. fiorn order den>inF yrernp- ’
’ oxrdl pprlation. Vi.!isie v inyo Co-nty (1966) 0:d-r appcnled iron
64 Qd 314. 5.1 CaI Kptr .XO, 4 19 P2d 44.
fj 2508i.f, Boz.ndaries of supervisorid districts: A?j~:stments
The boundaries or the supervisorial districxs shzli be adjusted by the board before the first day1 cf Xovernber of the year foiiolving rhe y?zr in which ezch decennial fzdeisl census is ‘taken. If the board fzik io adjust the boundaries before the first day of Xciiem‘cer ioiloxhz the year in which rhs federal census is taken, 2 s:ipmrisoriai rsdistricrin,o
~ornriiission shall do so befcre the 31st day of De:err.ber of the same year. The zdjusrr~erir. of the district boundaries shdl be immediately effective tht:. same as if the ac~ of the super.\-.isorial redistricting mmmission were an or,dinance of the board, subject, however, IO the s8me provisions cf refermaurn as apply to ordinmccs of the board.
Gmlty (1964) 233 CX2d
Add& S~ts 1st Ex Sess 1964. ch 21 $2, sh 40 $2; Amended Skts 1970 ch 361 $2.
JaicPad.men!s: 2,970 Amendment: (1) Substitixted “befox the first day of NovemScr” for “bet-secn tbe firs: rcgular meeting of the board he!d in January 1965 and An5l 39. i565. and rheraafrcr before the first dny of Ocxhsr” in the first sen:cnc:: (2j dcie:cci the former second sentence u.hich rexi: “If t!:e hoard fails to 2 btwecn the first renular rncetirr? of I~P bcard he!d in Jmiisrv lr65 ar.d .As\=! 3, 1965, z. su2ervisonal rcdisrnctins commis5ion sidl do so bcfxe ihe 5r-s~ c3Y of July of the year JO65.”; (3) 5uSst:tuted “Sovernber” fx “0c:cbcr” in the seccnd xafcme; (4) subs:itutcd “i he” for “any succeed:nz” kfox “!;-Ce;il cexm” in &e second ser?tence: (51 dr!crsd “lr. either c?x” zt rhz heyicnl,:; of the third ~nlen~~; 2nd (6) ddsted the 1st sentence which read: “‘If ;1 board 52s 3dop:ed a distrktin;: ordinance after Januzry 1 61, and ado?;s a re.o!ur:on r+din: eh3e ?&he populaiion equniiry arnonq the ricts meets tke stzndird reouired by
Section 2SG31, !he ’~~3rd need not st the boui~darics of the supznisorizl districts between the first reguiar mectmg CP the board :R f3nu.x~ 1965 and Apd
e.
’_ 3Q 7.965.”
$ %5001*2, SbIperviso;
The stlpel~%sotaal redistricting commission shall be composed of the
72 d is t F i ct i E q c 0 m rn f s s i 0 m : @e M p 0 si f * 0 3 ,
m
.. - * .. *.
.. .. .. ..
..
. ._
..
1.
... ., I.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 41 of 207
c .c ,* .. .- ‘0 ~
..
..
I. 6 25087.2 GQ$.’EfilKk/iENT OF COUNTIES
d%strfct attorney, who shall be ch.3imm, the cou~ty assessor, and the chtraiily clerk if he is elected by the qualified elrcrors of the coumity, or, if not, the county superinrenaent of sch.oo!s if he is elected by the qualified electors of the couiIt>‘, or, if not, the sheriff,
Added Sbts 1st Ex Sesi 1464 ch 2lS5 3, ch 43 $3; Amended Stats 1470 cb. 361 5 3.
Amendments:
1970 t%mendrnext: {!) Deleted “the county assasor,” before “the disrnct attorney’”; (2) added “~,ho shall be ciiairmx, the counry assessor”; and (3) dclcfed the second sentence which read: “Thc couniy clerk, superintendme of schools, or sheriff, whicnevcr is a membcr of the commission, shall be chai:inza.”
5 2SOOB.J. E3oiznal\ary adjustment Oil basis of censx
At. my tine between the decennial adjusrments of distr-ict boundaries, fhc board mzy cause a ce;xm of the county to be taken as pro7:ided in Section 26203, and may acijusr the bounchries of the super\;l:;oriai
dhrkes on the bzsis of tkzt census, or on the brisis of popu!ation
‘ estimates prepxed by the Slate Depzrtment of’ Finmce or the county
plannhz departnenr or piannirg cormnission, pursuant to Section.
25051. Xi1 the event my such cessus or report for Alarneda County prior to December 1, 1976, shows that the population of the dist13cts in such cou.nty is not 2s nearly ecud as pay kc, the board shall, prior
to December 31, 1976, adjut the boundaries of the districts pursuant
to Section 25Cr31-
Added Stats 1st Ex Sas 1964 ch 21 $4, ch 150 0 4; kmended Sbts 9370 ch 361 $4; S~A~S 1972 ch 996 $1.
Amendmeah:
..
8970 Amendr??ent: Substituted “population e-stirnata prepared by the State DeparC- rnent of Finznce or tne county piznnins aepsrtnrcnt or planning mmmission” fop
“the tozal number oi rc_eis:ered voters GT the counry”.
0 . 1972 Amcradrncn:: Added the second sentcnw,
0 8 25m1,4, Popufatian figur@s. used far I;aurtdary adjL:s:;m.e;9ts: JkCfiCIP
for declaratory relief
Any person clzirning that the estimates of popu!a‘iinrr -x~d. in. the
. redistricting pursuant to Secrion 2 jC31.3 do not reflect the CZX~E~ popul3eion viirfiin the district boundaries more accurately than the
moist recent census aiaea, may commence an action in the superior wart in declaratory relief co cieremine tfiat fact. ~ax1-t an action sh311 be brought within 30 days afres the adoption of ehe reciistricting
. ordinance,
AGdd Stas Est Ex SCS iW GB 21 8 5, ch 4.0 $5; hiended Stats 1970 ch 361 $5.
’ .. ~eaawlell~~~
E870 Amendmeiit: (1) Deleted the rom..er first 2nd second sentences which read: Toplation figure to lx used for the adjustment of bounda6ifi to IX aanl-
* 5% .. ’ 6b’ ’ . ._ . . . .. . . .
I.
. .. .. .. . ..
.. .. I .’ .. .,
,, . . .. . . ,I . ., ..-. February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 42 of 207
..
.*
.e ..
.. .
e :...
*‘
.. .. - ..
0Pe”bCER-s . 6 25002
$&ed txtv~~eri th. fine regu!nr nicr:inc of the b?.rd hcld in Jzriuarqr, 1965 azd npril 30, 1365, shall ‘m bsscd on the 136) federsl ccxus. or 3 I?!::- cc:iscs of rhc ~~~niy taken iir,dcr the provisioiis oi Scrion 2~203. or on the totnl number of re@ercd voters of the caunty. IiI 3 couniy in \i,hich rhe poyui2tiun hz incrusd by 20 1Z:ccnt 3i more bc;\<.cen .-\DEI 1, 1960). 2nd Ju:y I, i5c3, as repofica Cy t,hc State II)cparrment oi Finance in the cscunent cnriricd ‘Pcsukirlon of Giiicr-
g& au:Ilics, July 1, 1963.’ FoT7:iarion e~:irnatc^s m2.v bz used p:oviCed the kc~5
&emina :hat rhe cstim-trs wiil r+xt thz current poplzrion \\irhin the disinct ~~unda~ses more :ICCLIT~IL‘!~ than ;!!e 19d CCF.SUS dsra.”: (2) a1Sed “pui-suznr to haion 25001.3”; and (3) substi:nred “most recent” for “i560” in the fin:
Eealcnce.
, ..
5 25OOI,5, Advjsosyr cornmic;‘iee OR bornndargr changes: Authorization to
Rppoia-tf, xnembership, ~.tc,
‘ffx board may appoint: a committee coinposed of residents of the
. munty to study tne rT-. matter of changin! the boundancs oi tile
supenisoria~. disxricts: 1 ne committee shall make its report 10 xhe b~a.6 of its filidiilgs on the need for C~XIS~ or’ bouilcianes, and the
ywom.men$cd. changes, wiel-iin six rnonlhs aher the I;,nal popu!a:iora Cgjrcs deterinined in e-x:? federzl decennial census have bec:n re-
$=.sed, but in any event not iaier than. August 1st of the yer fojoElowing the )‘ear in which i.he census is taken. Recommendzrioi-ls of the commlti.ee ne advisory only.
k.azod SWS 19-10 ch 361 p 6.
Ba3o-r TAW: fiad 011 former 5 2SW9, a added by Stas 1961 ch ‘18.55 5 1.
25092, Continuance of sugcryisoT’s term of oEce: Ximi‘atinn OD 6me of boundary changi-; before or isetrveen elections
’ me te~m of osce of any supervisor who has been elected and whose term of ofiicc has riot expired shall not be 31Yeaecl by any change in the: bour,daries of ihe district from n:hnich he n’2s eleceed.
At the first election for ccunty supe~~isors in each county follon~ing.
. a6jjust;s;aent of the boundaries of supervisorial disrricts, a supervisor ’ shaI.I $e elected OS exh cjsr;jc& undzr the readj~~s~.~d district pia1 that has the same district number 2s a district whose ineumixnl;’~ team is
.A. change In the bourtdaries of a supewisoi-iak (~is~iic: shall not be ~~a,adc within 90 d~ys prior to the final &:e of votz9- registration for 2n
ddon of supervisors in thc c5mry or between ehe disect prilmajy e!~c:tion and the general. eiecrion-
IS@ cH 1318 !j E.
E%.,? I-.cw: j-h& on:
@I Tomif Poi C 5 432129. zs ~Med by Sizis E937 ch 282.4 1 p 364, ~~~mrieri by Stati E943 ch 9% 5 E p 2910.
*
.. due to expire.
7-.< .:
fddd S’3t~ 194.7 cb 42% $ 1; fiqmdcd St&$ 1st EX SCSS 1964. ch 21 $6, ch 40’ § 6; SQE
Cf] S%E; 189-7 &.rl g 16 p fy&
. v%7
..
...
.. .* .. : ’. ~
*. . .. *
.. .
..-. .. .. ..
,, .. February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 43 of 207
0 0 *- c
A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 * (714) 236-2293
LEE R. TAYLOR FIFTH DISTRICT EXECUTIt
CHAIRMAN BILL SAN
TED M
I December 23, 1976 3:
Mayor Robert C. Frazee
City of Carl sbad
City Hall
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Cal ifornia 92008
Dear Bob:
It is the intent of this letter to inform you of the proposed action by th
County Board of Supervisors to help lower the cost of housing.
On December 27, 1976, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to amend the
text of the San Diego County General Plan to change the effective date of
Plan Amendments as related to subdivisions.
The specific action freezes the County General Plan as it exists on the da
of the filing of an environmental impact initial study or draft environmen
impact report for a proposed subdivision. The initial study or draft envi
mental impact report is an applicant’s initial submittal for a lengthy
environmental review and subdivision processing period. During this perio
a subdivision application is subject to whatever changes a General Plan
Amendment would have upon the particular property to be developed. Potent
impacts are project delay and, in some cases, abandonment of the project.
The Board of Supervisors believes that such impacts contribute to the curr
high cost of housing.
I wish to urge that your city consider taking similar actions to expedite
the processing of subdivisions to help reduce the cost of new housing.
indeed, changes in procedure can result in lower housing costs, then such
changes cannot help but benefit all citizens.
If
S i ncerel y ,
(r ’3 1 i /
SA< ?I ’ 5 ’--: 1 ’ i_
Lee R. Taylor, Chairm
Supervisor, 5th Distr
LRT: CB: j r
Attachment: Text Amendment
VISTA OFFICE: 325 SO. MELROSE DRIVE. CA 92885 TELEPHONE 724-8571 February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 44 of 207
0 e *, v-7
U ‘4
Subarea Plans
It is the purpose of the adopted community plans, adopt
subregional plans, adopted development plans, and other
adopted subarea plans to be more definitive land use guidelines than the countywide General Plan, and in cas
of conflict the subarea plan takes precedence over the Use Element of the County General Plan, Community Pla subregional plans or development plans are not applicab
Land within the corporate limits of any city.
Land consisting of less than five acres under one owner where the Planning Comiission or Board of Superviscrs f that the land use proposal is consistent with the goals
objectives, and programs of the community, subregional, development plan.
Operative Dates of Amendments to this General Plan-
The operative date of any amendment to this General Pla
be the date on which the amendinent is adopted by the Bc
Supervisors except as hereinafter provided:
1. In the event a different operative date is prescrik!
in the amendment, that date shall be the operative date of the amendment; or i
2. In the event that a major subdivision development f-
been proposed by the filing of aT? environmental imy initial study or draft EIR together with required n
and fees prior to the adoption of an amendment to t
plan which applied a more restrictive designation t property proposed for subdivision, the operative da the amendment insofar as it applies to the properti
for subdivision shall be one year after the date t’r
above referenced initial study or draft EIR was fil provided that within one year from such filing the
applicant shall have completed the tentative map aF cantion pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance. This paragraph (2) shall only apply to amendments adopte
after
i
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 45 of 207
Exhibit 4
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 46 of 207
•
City of Carlsbad
Environmental Impact Report
for the
Palomar Airport
Annexation
EIR-387
Exhibit A
April 19,1977
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 47 of 207
Palomar Airport Annexation
Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared by:
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. REVIEW DOCUMENTS
List o.f agencies consulted , F-2
Letters received in Response to Draft EIR F-3
Planning Director's Response to Reviewing Agencies.... F-7
Minutes of Planning Commission and City Council
Hearing F-9
Supplemental Economic Information F-ll
II. Draft Environmental Impact Report 1
(See separate Table of Contents)
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 48 of 207
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Staff Recommendation
Date: August 2, 1977
Subject: EIR-387, Palomar Airport Annexation
Applicant: City of Carlsbad
Findings:
1. The EIR meets all requirements of the California Environmental
1 Quality Act and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance
of 1972.
2. The EIR has been properly noticed and reviewed.
3. No unavoidable adverse impacts will result from the project.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Final EIR-387 as contained in this document
be CERTIFIED based on the above findings. Any comments received
as part of the public hearing shall be included in the Final EIR.
Discussion:
The annexation of Palomar Airport will result in no physical changes
to the existing use. The primary effects of the annexation will be
to increase Carlsbad's planning authority over the airport, formalize
Carlsbad's provision of services to the airport, and redistribute
the tax revenues generated by the airport.
DHW: ar
F-lFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 49 of 207
List of Reviewing Agencies
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of San Diego Environmental Analysis Division
Comprehensive Planning Organization
Airport Land Use Commission
Gouty Department of Public Health
County Air Pollution Control District
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
Woodside/Kubota and Associates (Consulting Engineers for CMWD)
San Diego Gas and Electric
City Engineer
Fire Chief
Public Works Administrator
City Manager
F-2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 50 of 207
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Environmental Analysis Division
Community Services Agency
9150 Chewipftske Road (MS 0175), San Diego, California 92123 . . . Telephone 565-5757
r>i -f 'VL- 'J1'. : "''/ -.-i —.
June 28, 1977
MS. Dana Hield Whitson
Assistant Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
-"'-Tt;-,, ." ^ •'''.' [' '••'. ~ ,\ -..
SUBJECT: Draft EIR, Palomar Airport Annexation; Log #77-7-26
Dear Ms. Whitson:
The Environmental Analysis Div-ision staff has completed its review of
the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed annexation
of the Palomar Airport to the City of Carlsbad located within the
County of San Diego.
We have no comments at this time.
Respectfully,
BRADFORD K/WILLIAMS
Environmental Impact Report Coordinator
Enviironifiental Analysis Division
BKW':JBG:acn
F-3February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 51 of 207
"\ --. ™
' -^\ ' '*'"'• ' " ' -'"' ;i; :;•> ;•' :;,v
< WOODSED£/KUBOT£k & ASSOCIATES, ING.
>,-.. . - • -* ,r--~
CON&UL.TIKO j
ENGINEERS
-m 2965 Roosevelt St. • P.O. Box 1095 • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (714) 729-1194
July 8, 1977
Mr. James Hagaman, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 'Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Subject: Palomar Airport Annexation EIR -
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
Thank you for the opportunity of the Water District to respond to the
subject EIR prepared by your department. From the stand point of the
public water service agency for the property under discussion and the
fact that we are geographically neighbors of the Palomar Airport, we
offer you the following comments:
1. One of the foremost considerations of the proposed annexation is
to bring under the control of the City of Carlsbad the land use
impact of this neighbor airport upon the entire community of
Carlsbad and the surrounding area. To date under the control
of the County Board of Supervisors, the airport has developed
to the point where there are substantial problems of incompati-
bilities of land use between the airport properties and their
neighbors. As a matter of fact there are lands such as our
Water District already within the City of Carlsbad who are now
at the mercy of gross noise pollution and we are severly handi-
capped in making our plight known.
Accordingly, we feel very strongly that'if the annexation is to
proceed, there should be a complete understanding that the City
of Carlsbad is in the absolute position to bring discipline and
order in the entire neighborhood. Our concerns are further
amplified by the fact that the County of San Diego is now pro-
cessing a Conditional Use Permit for the airport itself. At the
very least we find it highly unusual that after all of these years
the County would proceed in this direction just at the same time
they are processing an annexation to the City.
2. With respect to public service, namely public water service, we
In Orange County, Santa Ana
F-4February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 52 of 207
City of Carlsbad
July 8, 1977
Page 2
want to advise you that the County of San Diego has at no time
ever properly addressed the issue of an adequate public water
system to serve the airport properties as well as the proposed
expansion. Our District has from time to time reminded the
County of San Diego that this important step is absolutely
essential in order that our water agency can provide adequate
service. We also want to remind you that the airport property
under the ownership of the County does not contribute one
penny of tax dollars to help finance all of the public water
service facilities that the airport property now enjoys. He
are hopeful that some day the County of San Diego will recognize
its financial obligations so that the rate payers and the tax
payers of the entire District can be relieved of their financial
burdens.
3. From our vantage point of'a public water service agency, we
question the validity of the information contained in the EIR
relating to revenues that will accrue to the City of Carlsbad.
We recognize there are several "interpretations of this sphere
of consideration; however, we are of the firm opinion that a
tax exempt agency must pay some form of "in lieu taxes" in order
to be responsive to their fair share of public services costs.
We welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions you may have
regarding this submission and please advise when you will be conducting
the public hearing portions of these proceedings.
truly yours ,
Engineer
District
cc
6//...JacR Y. Kubp'ta, District
CarJKsbad Municipal Water
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Legal Counsel
Lovell Hulbert
JYK/wv
CMWD 7711 F-5February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 53 of 207
MEMORANDUM - July 13, 1977 ; !
rr" • r /••;••:! c D/} PI
TO: Dana Whitson, Planning . .'" j -..-.-'..''-' "..•":;
FROM: City Engineer
SUBJECT: Palomar Airport Annexation EIR
In reviewing the draft, I notice that revisions are needed
to Page 14 - 3 Community Services, b. Sewer Service.
A review of the agreement indicates that there is no reference
to 10,000 gallons per day as an upper limit of flow from the
Airport. Also, the sewer moratorium do^s affect the Airport
as there are no exemptions other than the Council would have
to make a case^by-case review of ("other governmental agencies")
I have notified the County that sewer connection permits are
not available.
Tim Flanagan r /
City Engineer '^y
TCP:ms
c: PWA
F-6.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 54 of 207
Planning Director's Response to Comments
on the" Draift EIR
County of San Diego Environmental Analysis Division - No comment
Jack Kubota, Woodside /Kubota and Associates, Inc. -
Comment: If annexation is to proceed, there should be a complete
understanding that the City of Carlsbad is in an absolute
position to bring order in the entire neighborhood.
Response: The annexation of the airport will have no immediate effect
on the compatibility of the airport with surrounding uses.
The City does intend to process a Conditional Use Permit
for the airport and maintain authority over future fixed
base uses which might be requested.
According to the City Attorney, the City has no zoning or
land use authority over the airport functions which are
owned and operated by the County. The City has, in the
past, received assurances from the County that all plan-
ning for future airport facilities would be mutually de-
termined.
In addition, both the City and the Airport Land Use
Commission must review future developments in the vic-
inity of the airport in order to assure that noise and
safety hazards will be restricted to acceptable levels.
Comment: The County has not properly addressed the adequacy of
the existing public water system which serves the airport.
The airport has not contributed to the financing of
public water service facilities.
Response: The annexation will not affect the water service require-
ments for the airport. CMWD will continue to provide water
services. It is true that the County is not taxed, and
therefore does not contribute toward the financing of
public water service facilities. However, this applies
to all governmental facilities. CMWD, for example, pays
no taxes to offset police and fire services afforded by
the City.
Comment: We question the validity of the information contained in
the EIR relating to revenues that will accrue to the City
of Carlsbad.
Response: The revenue figures are based on the actual revenues
received by the County for FY 1975-76. The total annual
revenue expected to accrue to the City is $49,450. Staff
has not attempted to determine whether those revenues
will equal the City's expenditure for services. However,
in that the City presently receives no renumeration for
F-7
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 55 of 207
.,,„/
services already provided, the revenues accrued to the
City as a result of annexation will at least help to
offset service costs.
Comment: Tax exempt agencies should pay some form of "in-lieu
~' taxes" in order to be responsive to their fair share
of public service costs.
Response: This is a matter of State and Federal policy. The
equity of taxation practices has been widely debated.
In actuality, few developments pay taxes which are
roughly equivalent with the services they receive.
There is no local authority for charging "in-lieu taxes".
City Engineer:
Comment: Refer to Page 14-3 Community Services, b. Sewer Service.
A review of the sewer agreement between the City and the County of
San Diego indicates that there is no 10,000 gallon per day upper .
limit of flow from the airport as mentioned in the draft EIR. The
sewer moratorium does affect the airport and no new sewei- connection
permits will be issued unless exempted by the City.
Response: This revision is noted. AS pointed out. in the. draft EIR,
the problem with sewer service capability exists regardless of
whether the airport is annexed.
DHW:ar
F-8
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 56 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
/NNING cm-ussiopi MEETING
/JOUST 10, 1977
PAGE 2
Mr. Butts in rebuttal said he agreed that the yard areas
needed attention. He reported that as soon ass th<
has completed the conversion of his garage, ho would bring
the lawn up to neigliborliood standards. He said this
take approximately 11> days. ' He said, he liad no objection
to iroving the metal storage shed in the frontyard to
the backyard and v.ould do it on August llth. lie said
would move the sideyard matal shed to the backyard if
necessary.
The Conrnission indicated that Mr. Butts was operating a
facility that was non-conforming to the area and should
maintain standards compatible with the neighborhood.
It was pointed out tliat Kr. Butts is in violation of tho
zoning code by having the irctal r.hed located where it i
in the front yard, by letting the weeds grow and trash
collect in his yard and caring Cor six people before the
. conditional use permit had been approved.
Mr. Butts said the two people over and above the original
four were temporary and would be leaving by the end of tb
week.
The Public Hearing was closed.
A motion was roade to deny CUP-138 based on the findings that
the use was rot compatible with the neighborhood.
The notion did not carry. .
Itiere was a discussion on whether tha conditional use permit
could be limited to a nurrber of four and if the conditional
use permit was approved and subsequently at a later date
revoked, could Mr. Butts then operate the facility for four
under the original non-conforming use.
A notion was made that CUP-138 be continued to October 12,
1977 for the purpose of. allowing Mr. Butts to ccmply with
his testimony to clean up the yard and bring it up to
existing neighborhood standards.
Ihe notion did not carry.
A notion was made to continue CUP-138 to continue CUP-138
to August 24, 1977, to obtain legal advice from the City
Attorney regarding: (1) Is it legal to limit the number
of care patients to four on a conditional use permit, and
(2) if the conditional use permit is recorded to limit the
number to four and then is subsequently revoked, does the
applicant have the right to continue using the facility
as a.non-conforming use.
»
(2) Case No..ETR-387, Palomir Ajrport Annexation -
5b consider certification ot. the Environmental
Inpact Itoport for the Palotrar Airport Annexation.
ffe. Dcinn Whitfipn, Assir.tnnt Planner, gavo the stn
presentation. She explained that the I;1R addresses itself
only to the inpact o£ tho aiuiexatiort of Uic airjort.
cas
itracto
bring
AOuld
ion
he
a
Id
tho
j-G
1
the
mal
£ the
js that
psrmit
:ional
5 tO
- four
- 12,
ri.th
138
ty>erand
. the
the
y
n.
self
NOTION-
AYES
NOES
MOTION
AYES
NOES
M7TIOT
AYES
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X X
X X X
F-9February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 57 of 207
vvvv v\
CITY OF CARLSBAD
•m
•m
m
m
/•JNING COtMtSSION
/GE 3
UOOSS 10, 1977
The Crjmtdssior>ers discussed .the economic iinpact that the
annexation will have on Curlslxid in regard to services
given jji relation to revenues received. There was concern
expressed for the loyal responsibility of the airport if
annexation occurs and discussion about the noise factors
as they relate to the take-off and landing patterns of
aircraft over the City of Carlsbad.
A motion was r.-ade to certify EJK-387 for the Paloinar Airport
Annexation with the inclusion of additional information
shelving the cost of services vs. the inconc generated by
annexation for both the present tirre and projected figures.
(3) ^•l£!_^2;-_iE^v'l£'JL:_f:2>Pt:y °" San Diego - Approval of aGeneral Plan ftr^nciricnt to changF the Ix^rid Use
designation from OS {Open Space) to G (Governmental
Facilities) to enable construction of a Solid V.'aste
Shredder and Transfer Station.
Ms. Dana H. V.'nitsQn gave the staff presentation.
Clarence Kau-ran, Sanitation and Flood Control. County of
San Diego, said the area from D3i Mar north would be served
by this facility. The cities to the north hear the Bonsall
landfill vrould continue to deposit their trash there.
The facility in Carlsbad vould handle approximately 600
tons a day ar.d serve about 170,000 population'. Mr. Kaufman
explained th-;re were unusual circumstances in North County
vtoich limited the site availability for this project: (1)
Either the areas were very close to developments, (2) The
area would ir.pact the airport (disposal sites cannot be
located within 10,000 feet of airport runway under FAA
regulations) , or (3) There was too much rock in the
iroro rarote. areas and not enough cover dirt or suitable
geologic conditions for sanitary landfilling, and (4)
it was necessary to have the site serve the population
adequately. The site chosen does not have enough cover dirt
for convaiticnal landfill but can be utilized as a shredder
wasteland fill because there is no requirement to cover dail'
The EDA grant for 3*1 million dollars for this project has
certain timh restraints wliich would not permit condemnation
proceedings that would accompany the purctasing of new land.
The site is County ovned land.
Mr. Gary Kesch, County 6f San Diego, stated that the raids
were "City roaJs and the traffic would be the responsibility
of the City. He realized there would be conditions placed
on this.
Hr. Ross Spalding, 4123 F Street, Carlsbad, .Manager of Japati
Corporation, who are the owners of the property adjacent to tl
west of the site, said he wished to go on record as not
necessarily opposed to the project but cona>rnod since they
plan to build an industrial park and because of this thoy
arc concerned about the noise and aesthetics of the facility
A motion was rr.idc to continue GPA-49 to Auqvist 24, 1977 in
order to allcw tin? Itoard of Su[Krvisors time to certify
the KIR on this project.
MOTION
AYES
'NOES
ABSTAIN
1
Mr/rrai
AYEf,
X
X
X
X
X
!
1
1
'/.'
.
X
F-10February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 58 of 207
ADDENDUM TO EIR-387
*
Re: Supplemental Economic Information
* Background
•m The Planning Commission requested that additional economic information
on the cost of supplying services: to the airport vs. the revenues;* received be added to the Palomar Airport annexation EIR.
The revenues to be generated can be fairly accurately predicted, based
«* on revenue data for previous years. However, municipal service cost for
police and fire protection and general government cannot be easily assigned
'* to the airport. For example, the Police Chief has stated that the Airport
a annexation will not tax existing police services. However, when considered
cumulatively with other new development, the annexation will contribute to
•« a demand for increased police service.
* In addition, there is no way .of pro-rating the City's overall service
costs as a means for accurately predicting the service costs for a single
user. With these limitations in mind, Staff chose to discuss service
* costs in more general terms.
REVENUES1
Annexation of the airport would cause four significant sources of revenues
* to accrue to the City. The following estimate of revenues for the 1976-77
fiscal year is based on 1975-76 revenue figures.
Sales Tax ' $13,050
* Businesses are already paying this and revenue currently goes to County
but would go to City when annexed.•*•
* Aircraft Personal Property Tax $29,672
* Aircraft at Palomar Airport are subject to this tax. At present, h of
m this tax goes to school districts and h to County. Upon annexation,
distribution would be as follows: 1/3 County, 1/3 school districts,
1/3 City.
* Possessory Interest Tax $ 6,200
* Possessory interest in land and improvements are subject to City property
* tax of $1.90. This tax is already levied by taxing jurisdictions which
include the airport within their boundaries. Upon annexation, the City's
* tax levy would be added to the combined total.
BusinessLicense Tax $528 plus
<m The revenue derived would depend upon the gross receipts of them businesses at the airport. A conservative estimate of $1,500,000
gross receipts was assumed for this estimate.
* TOTAL: $49,450
s information is based on an October 20, 1976 memo from Frank Mannen
Administrative Assistant to the City Manager.
F-llFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 59 of 207
****,
There do not appear to be any other significant revenue sources which
would accrue to the City due to the annexation of the airport. Revenues
are expected to increase commensurate'with expanded usage of the airport
SERVICES2
Sewer Service
The City of Carlsbad is presently providing sewer service to the airport
The City and County entered into an agreement regarding service in May,
1975. The County currently pays an annual sewer service charge as
••-••• •• • The agreement further provides that in the
is annexed to the City of Carlsbad, the agree-
modified to provide for a rate (sewer service
same basis as for other commercial and
Ci ty Iimits.
specified in the agreement
event the airport property
ment shall be deemed to be
charge) established on the
industrial users within the
Hater Service
Water service to the airport is provided by Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. Annexation should have no direct effect on the provision of
water service to the Airport.
Trash Hauling
The same trash
service to the
hauler operating
airport and this
in the City of Carlsbad is also providing
service would continue after annexation.
Leisure Service
The proposed annexation would have no significant impact on the demand
for Park and Recreation and Library service.
Street Maintenance and Improvements
Since the airport property is in County ownership, the maintenance of
streets and other public improvements within the airport would remain the
responsibility of the County. The City of Carlsbad would become responsible
for the maintenance of that portion of Palomar Airport Road which lies
adjacent to Palomar Airport. The City Engineer indicates that it would
be desirable for the County to bring this portion of Palomar Airport Road
up to City maintenance standards prior to annexation.
To bring Palomar Airport Road to full standards
following improvements would need to be made t'o
the airport fronts:
as a prime arterial, the
the 3400 feet upon which
Ibid.
F-12
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 60 of 207
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (1061 Pavement/1 26'R.0.W .)
'« IMPROVEMENT (Between El Camino Real and Yarrow Road) ESTIMATED COST
Curb, gutter and sidewalk ($20/L.F.) $ 68,000
Street lights 34 ? $2000 68,000
Median construction $10/L.F. 34,000
* Landscaping 20,000
<* Paving and Base 50' additional width @ $1.00 S.F. 170,000
•4*Grading and Excavation 50,000
Traffic signal @ P.A.R. & Yarrow . 60,000•at
Traffic signal @ P.A.R. & El Camino Real 80,000
Relocate utilities 50,000
$600,000
'Engineering, inspection (15%) $90,000
'«WW
Contingencies (20%) 120,000
***{ ' .
TOTAL $810,000
*s*
Business License Enforcement
^ "
,m Most businesses operating at Palomar Airport would be subject to the
City Business License requirements. After an initial effort to insure
m that all businesses are licensed, there should be no significant enforce-
ment problems at the airport. .The Airport Manager has indicated that he
* will assist the City in any way possible to help insure that businesses are
^ properly licensed.
* According to the City Clerk the anticipated business license revenues
($528+) should more than cover administrative costs.m
* Police Services
•m The Police Department indicates that the proposed annexation will have a
very slight effect on its patrol activities. Routine patrol service canM easily be provided through the present beat organization. It is not
m anticipated that the airport will generate a significant demand for police
service.m
The Police Chief indicated that a very rough estimate of Police service
"" costs for the airport would be $10,000 annually.
i*
F-13
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 61 of 207
Fire Service
The fire service required at the airport will fall into three categories;
inspection, structural fire protection and crash services.
The demand for fire services in the short term will not heavily impact
the Fire Department. There will be an increase in fire inspection
activities, but this increase can be integrated into the present work
load of the Fire Inspection Division. The Fire Chief estimates that
fire inspection of the airport will require approximately 15 rnan-hours
annually.
Structural fire protection at the airport can be adequately provided from
the La Costa Station for the short term. However, as the industrial
property at the airport and in the adjacent industrial parks develops,
an additional station will be required in the general vicinity of the
airport. The cost of this station must be assigned to all future uses in
the vicinity of the airport.
Crash services are currently provided by a light crash truck stationed at
the airport and manned by County personnel. The truck is only manned on
a part-time basis generally during daytime hours. If in the future
improved crash service is required, this will need to be negotiated by
the County. The Fire Marshall indicates that the water supply to the
Airport should be upgraded. The water system should be looped and additional
hydrants installed in order to provide adequate fire-flows to all structures
at the airport. It is anticipated that this upgrading will occur as the
airport develops.
_Building Inspection
Annexation should not create a significant demand for service from the
Building Department. The Building Department has indicated that building
permit fees exceed the costs for plan check and inspection.
SUMMARY
The City already provides many municipal services on an informal (police
and fire) or contractual (sewer) basis for the airport. We receive no
tax revenues for those services at the present time.
We cannot predict the actual cost of providing City services to the air-
port. However, we do know that the increased service demands can be
reasonably accommodated. The $50,000 annual revenues would appear to
cover the increased service liability (beyond those services already
provided.)
F-14
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 62 of 207
PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared by:
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 1977
April 18, 1977
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 63 of 207
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I.
II.
III.
IV.
y.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
TABLE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
FIGURES
I.
II.
III.
Introduction and Summary
Project Description
Environmental Setting
Significant Environmental Effects '
Measures to Mitigate Significant Effects
Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be
Avoided.
Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Alternatives To The Proposed Action
The Relationship Between Local Short Term
Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance
of Long Term Productivity.
Irreversible Environmental Changes Which
Would be Involved in the Proposed Action
Should it be Implemented.
Growth Inducing Impacts
Certification
Agencies and Individuals Consulted
LIST OF TABLES
Palomar Airport 1973, Emissions in
Pounds/Day.
Estimated Response to Noise Levels
Land Use Compatibility for Aircraft Noise.
Palomar Airport Annual Aircraft Operatiors.
Peak Vehicular Traffic
Vicinity Map
Airport Layout
Topography Map
PAGE
1
3
3
16
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22 •
PAGE
9
19
19
19
19
PAGE
4
5-6
7
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 64 of 207
•m.
m
IV. Geologic Map 8
V. Wildlife Checklist 10
VI. Plantlife Checklist 11
VII. Land Use - Carlsbad General Plan 12
VIII. Zoning 13
4
IX. Location of Archaeological Sites 17
X. 100 CNR Noise Contour, 1973, 1975,
1980 and 1990. 18
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 65 of 207
Section I. Introduction and Summary
A. Purpose
This Environmental Impact Report addresses the proposed annexation
of the Palomar Airport property to the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad
is the lead agency for the annexation. The San Diego Local Agency
Formation Commission and the County of San Diego (as the owner and
operator of the airport) are responsible agencies, as defined in
Section 15039 of the State EIR Guidelines as amended January 1, 1977.
The County Board of Supervisors certified an Environmental Impact
Report for the Palomar Airport Master Plan (Log #75-7-13) in May of
1976. That EIR addressed the environmental setting of the airport
and the surrounding area and the effects of the existing and antic-
ipated future airport operations. As allowed in Section 15149 of
the State EIR Guidelines, relevant portions of the Palomar Airport
Master Plan EIR have been summarized and incorporated by reference
in this EIR. Copies of the Palomar Airport Master Plan EIR are
available for review at the following locations:
1. City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
2. Carlsbad Public Library
Government' Document Section
1250 Elm Avenue
3. County of San Diego
Environmental Analysis Division
9150 Chesapeake
San Diego, Calif.
The purpose of this EIR is to examine both the localized and regional,
short-term and long-term effects of the annexation of Palomar Airport.
It is the City's policy to use an EIR as a planning tool for early
identification of the environmental effects of an action. The City
will mitigate any adverse environmental impacts, or approve lesser
impacting alternatives unless it is socially or economically unfeas-
ible to do so.
B. Summary
1. Project Description
The City of Carlsbad proposes to annex the 256 acre-Palomar Airport
to the City of Carlsbad. The airport currently has one runway at a
length of 4700 feet and a width of 150 feet. Approach lights, an
instrument landing system, and a unicorn radio are among the
navigational aids existing on the site. The airport also sustains
a number of airport-related fixed based operations and support fac-
ilities, including flight instruction and aircraft charter services,
aircraft sales and rental, aircraft maintenance and repair services,
storage, fuel services, and a restaurant. The airport houses man-
agement and federal aviation personnel onsite. The Hughes Tool
Company assembly and test facility is also located on the site.
.1February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 66 of 207
The annexation will affect the level of municipal services available to
serve the airport. It will also change the distribution of sales tax,
aircraft personal property tax, possessory interest tax and business
license tax revenues. Since all of the territory proposed for annexation
is owned by the County of San Diego, the City will not gain the same level
of land use controls which would be applied to annexation of privately
owned land. The County is required by the Public Utilities Code to submit
plans to the City prior to the acquisition of land for the expansion or
enlargement of the airport. However, the City has little legal authority
for applying land use regulations or development standards to County
owned property. The County as a courtesy, has encouraged the City's
participation in long term planning for the airport, and it is anticipated
that this informal cooperation will continue.
B. Significant Environmental Effects
The only adverse effect of the project will be a loss of sales tax and
aircraft personal property tax revenues to the County at approximately
$28,000 annually (using 1975-1976 revenue figures). As the airport
expands its operations, this annual loss of revenue is also expected to
increase. However, expansion of the airport operations is expected to
increase user revenues, thus offsetting the County's operational costs.
Staff believes that this adverse impact can be mitigated by improved
services and lower fire insurance rates.
C. Beneficial Effects
The project will result in the following beneficial effects:
1) Police, fire and emergency medical services for the property will be
greatly .improved.
2) The annexation will reduce an existing county island, helping to
correct a problem with illogical service and planning area boundaries.
3) The annexation will allow Carlsbad to collect revenues commensurate
with services already being provided on an informal basis.
SUMMARY OF MIT ICATION MEASURES
' . '
1. Although there is no legal basis for requiring it, the County should
continue to enlist the City's participation in the planning and
design of future airport facilities. This will assist in the
compatible development of areas surrounding the airport.
2. The adverse economic impact to the County will be offset by:
a. An improvement in the level of police, fire, and emergency
medical services;
.2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 67 of 207
b. A decrease in insurance costs due to improved services (the
•"• fire rating for the airport will be significantly improved);
•**
c. Increasing revenues from user fees.
•**
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
^ The proposed project is the annexation of a 256 acre existing
airport facility located at the northwest intersection of El Camino
— Real and Palomar Airport Road (see Figure 1 - Vicinity Map). The
property is bounded by property within the City of Carlsbad on three
** sides. '
•£M
The major effects of the annexation will be to:
<**
1. Reduce an existing county island;
„ 2. Formalize the requirements for Carlsbad to
provide police and fire protection service
*" for the airport; and,
*" 3. Redistribute revenues generated by the airport.
The proposed annexation is to be considered by three agencies:
The County of San Diego, the City of Carlsbad, and the San Diego
M Local Agency Formation Commission. The existing and planned airport
facilities are described in detail in Sections 1.2 and 1.4 of the
•«• Environmental Impact Report for the Palomar Airport Master Plan
(County of San Diego, Log No. 75-7-13). A layout of the airport
** facilities taken from that EIR is shown in Figure 2.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
*
A. Physical Characteristics
'm
m 1. Landforms- Palomar Airport is at an elevation of 328 feet above
sea level, approximately five miles inland from the Pacific
* Ocean. It is situated on a narrow coastal plain less than a mile
wide. The airport is located in an area characterized by a
rolling terrain transversed by eroded canyons and water courses.
The topography of the site is shown in Figure 3.
* 2. Geology and Soils - The geology and soils of the site are
covered in detail in Section 2.5 of the EIR for Palomar Airport
* Master Plan. A map of geology of the airport site is contained
* in Figure 4.
•m Briefly summarized, the Palomar Airport area is underlain by a
Pleistocene age wave cut terrace which is cut by natural drainage
courses. Much of the airport site has been extensively modified
„, by grading and previous sanitary landfills.
"* 3. Hydrology - At present, surface water exists on the project site
only during and immediately following rainfall. The easterly
*" portion of the property sheet flows toward Palomar Airport Road.
* The remainder of the drainage is directed to three southwesterly
trending drainage courses originating at the westerly end of
«• the property. A more detailed description of hydrology is con-
41
.3
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 68 of 207
C*.V,
A .'
^VUJCHO CiRVSBap
"' GOLF COURSE
V. '=. l U_\T= '•&. '\\FCl
.-. D
VlQJliIY_Jy1AP
^^^r^\H
>;. — i
I;.• i
i«
i'
?
f
^'
" SOUTH CARLSBAD
'ANNEXATION NO. 1.24
FIGURE 1
'>
V SAN DIEGO
CARl^SBAD CITY
C/* M
^
c**- '
N-
7 + — ~
-Jl
//
^^
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 69 of 207
82' TOWER (L)
TO U.S. 101
3.5 MILES
L
— in
HUGHESTOOL <;;o.
TEST
FACILITY
SCALE IN FEET
300 0 600 AUTO PARK - 250
TIE-DOWNS - 300
HANGAKS - 12, 440 SQ.FT.
EUlLDlMG AREA
HUGHES - 20,000
TOTAU - sz,)03 SOFT.
Figure 2 (a)Airport Layout - Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California
Source: San Diego County, EIR for
Palotnar Airport Master Plan.
*» f * I f 1 f !1 PI fl fl »' 1 f 1
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 70 of 207
s&" ^*e*»~
' ^/->:^V-^/^,i
0 500 1000 2000 5000 FEET
SOURCE. WLPA
RUNWAY, TAXIWAY SYSTEM i i
AVIATION ORIENTED -X-
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL •
Ultimate Land Use Plan
Source: San Diego County, EIR for
Palomar Airport Master Plan.
RECREATION/BUFFER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
T CONTROL TOWER
Figure 2(b)
(6)February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 71 of 207
..:*;!s^^-v/.,^--^.. «.
•*,.;.:,"-*--,. , i,/, « a/ >/""--<• ; V "*» /A^^'/" ^'"^<(
'.'^V;v v^0 , ,' ^yp,,^V._ ^ .,.' \ yV^-^!^..!, . -;,.' ^>'-J ~^-.y--- ^ ^_ .. \ V-H-,-;<l^^-. V •• /.^'XSr-r-S^i'-V//
*M.kW:&<L
\^-
./ ;.— !•• .)'/"',V^i^^^-^t^
%k ^ii*J^i / -, -^i....'.
\U v.V///r.. rM/V-.^-- ^•','/L~ . ,r>'J li^^UU./J-Ji)jJL^^;^^i^L^-JU._ '.l.1^ =v
i^^^^^^^^^Spf!^^^- ;^-
0^4..-V;^* S?r*r?
>-\ i ' ,
°
GV^J! •w^c/?a\ j MJ'^)
2^-~\-v; ;c
fi; 0 Topographic Map
(y,-~i; Source: USGS Map
1:2400.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 72 of 207
k«c a fci i §• I i
oo
^V,v:>- •-••
- • /£»..
. •r^^-^^p--^-,2 . / ..T/ ./-
of I ARTIFICIAL FILL
QUATERNARY LINDAVISTA FM.
TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE
TERTIARY(P) PALEOSOIL
CRETACEOUS POINT LOMA FH.
JURASSIC SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Contacr -T— Fvlt
Paloraar Airport Geologic Map
InftrrtdFault
Figure 4 Source: San Diego County', EIR for
Palomar Airport Master Plan.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 73 of 207
tained in Section 2.3 of the EIR for the Palomar Airport
Master Plan.
4. Air Quality- The ambient air quality in the vicinity of
Palomar Airport is described in Section 2.1 of the Palomar
Airport Master Plan EIR. The emissions generated by the
airport are as follows:
TABLE I PALOMAR AIRPORT 1973, EMISSIONS IN POUNDS/DAY
Sources
Motor
Vehicles
Industry
Aircraft
Evapora-
tion (fuel)
TOTALS
Hydro-
Carbons
499
174
142
815
Particu-
lates
' 22
Ill
-
133
NO
2
430
Negligible
111
-
541
SO
2
14
12
-
16
CO
3366
5044
-
8410
•m
m
m
•m
B. Biological Characteristics
The area surrounding Palomar Airport consists of three major vege-
tative communities: coastal sage scrub, chaparral and cultivated areas
(truck crops — primarily tomatoes). Figures 5 and 6 denote plant
and animal species occurring or expected to occur on the site. No
rare or endangered species were encountered during field surveys, or
are expected to inhabit the site. A detailed description of the
biological characteristics of the site is contained in Section 2.4
and Appendix II of the EIR for Palomar Airport Master Plan.
C. Human Characteristics
1. Land Use
The airport is close to the center of the Carlsbad planning area.
To the south of the airport is the County Animal Shelter, the Hughes
Aircraft Company Industrial Products Division, and the partially
developed Palomar Airport Industrial Park. East of the airport is
the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Office, and the clear/zone
with runaway approach aids. North of the airport is a vacant parcel
owned by Japatul Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of San Diego Gas
and Electric Company.) Japatul has announced plans to apply for
approval of a specific plan for an industrial park on their property.
Those plans anticipate negotiations with the County for future
airport expansion. Land to the west of the airport is vacant, with
a portion being farmed with truck crops. Existing zoning and land
uses from the Carlsbad Land Use Element of the General Plan for
surrounding properties are shown on Figures 7 and 8.
.9February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 74 of 207
Figure 5 Wildlife Checklist
Animal Species Probable Spotted
MAMMALS
•m
m
California Ground Squirrel (Citellus beecheyi)
Nimble Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys agilis)
Desert Wood"Rat (Neotoma lepida)
California Mouse (Peromyscus californicus)
Short-eared Pocket Mouse (Perognathus fallax)
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmanni)
Dusk v-footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes)
California Pocket Mouse (Perognathus californicus)
BIRDS
Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae)'
Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillum)
Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena)
Wrenu't (Charnaea fasciata)
Brown Townee (Pipilo fuscus)
Sage Sparrow (Arrphispiza belli)
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps)
Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus)
Scrub lay (Apbelocorna coerulescens)
Poor-will (Phalatnoptilus nutiallii)
Bewick's Wren (Thryornanes bewickii)
California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)
Rufous-sideo Townee CPipilo erythrophthalmus)
Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata)
REPTILES
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
Striped Racer (Masticophis lateralis)
Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
Southern Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus)
Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatuna)
INVERTEBRATES
Ringlei (Coenonympha tullia)
Common Checkspot (Euphydryas chalcedona)
Leanira Checkerspot (Melitaea leanira)
Bramble Hairsueak (Calophrys dumetorum)
Mormon Metalmark (Apooernia mormo)
C anrt'nuf Silt- Moth (Platysainia euryalus)
Anr^he: Silk Moth (S;iturn;a wahrrorum)
Gray Hairstreak (Strymon auenostorr.atis)
Hec^erow Hairstreak (Strymon saepium)
Arofa Copper (Lycaena arota)
Callippe Fritillary (Speyena callippe)
Flai-h-jaded Borer or Buprcstid (Acniaeodera maripcsa)
California Timema (Tur.vnia ralifC'rn.ca)
AMPHIBIANS
Pacific Tree Frog (Hyla recilla)
Introduced Bullfrog (Rana calesbiana)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: San Diego County, EIR for Palomar
Airport Master Plan.
.10February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 75 of 207
Ml
•m
*
m
m
m
m
•m
m
*
at
m
•*
•
•m
*
*
*
m
m
<n
•
m
m
•m
m
•m
m
Figure 6 Plant Life
Plant Species
California Wormwood or Sagebrush (Artemisia californica)
White Sage (Sal via apiana)
Black Sage (Salvia mellifera)
Encelia (Encelia farinosa)
Yerba Santa (Eriodictyon californica)
Eriophyllum (Eriophyllum confertiflorum)
California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum)-
Lemonade-berry (Rhus integri folia)
Prickly pears (Opuntia spp. )
Ou: Lord's Candle (Yucca vhipplei)
Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum)
Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa)
Foothill Ash (Fraximus dipetala)
Hard Tack (Cercocarpus betuloides)
Wild Lilacs (Ceanothus cordulatus, C. greggii,
C. leucodermis, C. megacarpus.
C. crassifolius, etc)
Holly-leaf Cherry (Prunus ilici folia)
Bear Bush (Garrya fremontii)
Quinine Bush (Garrya flavescens)
Manzanitas (Arctostapnylos pungens, A. pringlei,
A. glauca, A. glandulosa, etc)
Toyon(Heteromeles arbutifolia)
Sucarbush (Rhus ovata)
W:l!rws (Satix spp.)
G. .: :--,on Tule (S'-irnu? acutus)
California Bulrush (S^irpus c&i; formcus)
* 1C - I'NCONSOLIPATED AND DISTURBED
SD - STREAMSIDE AND DISTURBED
** A - ABUNDANT
C - COMMON
1 - INFREQUENT
Soui
1 1
Checklist
Location* Abundance**
UC C
UC C
UC C
UC C
UC C
UC C
UC C
UC I
UC C
UC 1
UC I
UC C
UC I
UC C
UC C
UC I
UC I
UC _ I
UC 1
UC I
SD . I
SD C
SD C
SD I
-
rce: San Diego County, EIR for
Palomar Airport Master Plan
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 76 of 207
J Ust i i i i
' .-x• '
^•f,7r
"/ i FM 1 Cl*& a . \v. Y,. •—>«._
RL: Residential Low Density
RLM: Residential Low Medium Density
RM: Residential Medium Density
N : Neighborhood Commercial
PI: Planned Industrial
E: Elementary School
OS: Open Space
NRR: Non-Residential Reserve
G: Governmental Facilities
£S23 : Special Treatment AreaFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 77 of 207
01 W rHrH W 1a a) n-H•H C 01 HJJ -H 0) -J
•H CD B a3 3-H 3
£ P3 01 -O
3 C» H
February 20, 2018Item #3 Page 78 of 207
•**"*%
2 . Socio - Economic Characteristics
The Palomar Airport Master Plan contains a separate socio-economic
analysis (dated 9-19-75) on the existing and planned future operations
at the airport. That analysis concluded that the enlarged airport
would have an overall benefit of increasing safety, increasing the
local tax base, and decreasing fuel use and travel costs.
The socio-economic effects of the airport's operation primarily
benefit the region served by the airport: Carlsbad, San Marcos,
Vista, San Dieguito, Fallbrook and Oceanside.
3 . Community Services
a. Water Service - The airport is within the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District Service boundary. The Palomar Airport Master
Plan EIR contains a description of water service availability
in Section 2.3. That report concludes that the existing water
facilities are adequate for present requirements, and planned
expansions will meet future needs.
b. Sewer Service - The present sewage flow for Palomar Airport is
5,000 gallons per day. Effluent is discharged through an 8" main
to the Buena trunkline, which runs parallel to Palomar Airport
Road to the Encina Treatment Plan. There is adequate line
(transmission) capacity to handle existing and anticipated sewage
flow from the airport.
Sewer service is provided on the basis of a contract between the
County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad. The contract allows
•Palomar Airport to discharge up to 10,000 gallons per day into the
Buena trunk line. This right to discharge is for an indefinite
period of time, but may be terminated after 90 day's notice at the
discretion of either party.
The City of Carlsbad has recently enacted a six month moratorium
on building permits involving sewer connections and discretionary
permits (including annexations) because, the City is expected to
soon fill its legal capacity at the Encina Treatment Plant. The
City specifically exempted the annexation of Palomar Airport from
this moratorium. It is uncertain at this time whether the City
will be able in the future to provide sewage transmission and
treatment services in excess of existing flow. However, in that
the City is already providing sewer service to Palomar Airport,
this uncertainty would exist regardless of annexation.
Schools - The airport is within the Carlsbad Unified School
District boundaries. Present enrollment is 4,358 students for
grades K-12. No school sites are planned for locations near
the airport and the flight .path because of potential noise and
safety hazards.
.14February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 79 of 207
j • \»Police Protectrfon - The property presently is provided police
protection service by the County Sheriff's Department. The
nearest Sherrif's Office is at a site near Encinitas Blvd. and
El Camino Real, which is approximately 8*5 miles from the air-
port. At the present time, the Carlsbad Police Department
responds to emergency calls from the airport control tower
(i.e, in case of crash or disabled aircraft). Assistance from
the Carlsbad Police Department is performed on a courtesy basis
approximately 6-10 times annually.
*"" e. Fire Protection - The County has no fire protection service
* ' available to serve the airport except for one crash rescue truck kept on
site. The City supplements the onsite equipment with fire fighting
•*• personnel and equipment from both La Costa and Station #3.
— Response time from both of these stations is approximately
3 minutes. Since Carlsbad provides this service simply as
„ a courtesy to the County, there is no provision for back-up
assistance. For instance, if fires occurred simultaneously
* at a location within the City service area and at the airport,
the City would be obligated to provide priority service to
the property which it is legally required to serve. Since
» the airport is not within the legal service area boundaries
of the City, the City could not request assistance from another
'*" jurisdiction under the City's existing mutual aid agreement.
«, The City Fire Department' responds to approximately five calls
to the airport annually. The existing water mains onsite are
* not adequate for fire protection purposes. These mains are
proposed to be upgraded as part of planned expansions to the
** airport.
f. Health Care and Emergency Medical Services - Ambulance service
*• ' is provided by the City of Carlsbad to the airport on the same
informal basis as police and fire service. An ambulance can
"* be dispatched from Stations #2 (La Costa) or #3 (Chestnut -and
m El Camino Real) to the site within approximately 3 minutes.
Accident victims are transported to Tri-City Hospital, located
...... 8 miles from the airport.
•— g. Solid Waste Disposal - Solid waste disposal service is currently
provided by McDougal Sanitation Company, which also provides
the service to properties within the City limits. The McDougal
*~ Company deposits the refuse in the Gopher Canyon landill in
Bonsall. The County proposes to open the new San Marcos land-
"*" fill in April 1978. The proposed land fill is approximately
^ 7 miles from the airport.
"* h- Public Utilities/Energy
Palomar Airport is served by 12Kv distribution facilities
^ flowing from the Batiquitos substation, roughly two miles south
of the airport. Gas service is provided from a two inch gas
* main adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and a four inch gas main
running within El Camino Real. Palomar Airport does not con-
sume a significant amount of natural gas and electricity rel-
* ative to neighboring uses. The existing facilities are adequate
for present airport use and should be adequate to serve the
«• planned expansion of the airport.
.15February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 80 of 207
4. Visual Quality/Aesthetics - The site possesses no special
visual or aesthetic qualities. Surrounding chaparral and oak wood-
land areas may be preceived by people as aesthetically pleasing.
The rolling topography surrounding the airport is also generally
regarded as attractive.
5. Archaeology - The airport and surrounding areas were surveyed
in August and September 1974 by an archaeologist with the San Diego
County Engineering Department. Two archaeological sites were dis-
covered in the clear zone area east of El Camino Real. The details
of this survey are contained in pages 33-37 of the Palomar Airport
Master Plan EIR. A map of archaeological sites on and around the
airport property is contained in Figure 9.
6. Circulation/Ground Access - Palomar Airport is served by two
arterial roadways and a limited number of collector streets. The
entrance to the airport (Aircraft Road) was widened in 1974 and an
access road through Palomar Airport.Business Park (Yarrow Drive)
was extended shortly thereafter. A detailed access study for the
existing airport and planned expansions is contained in Appendix
A of the Palomar Airport Master Plan (William L. Pereira Associates,
1975) .
7. Noise - The existing noise attributable to the airport results
from aircraft operations and related automobile traffic. The
existing and projected noise levels of the airport's operations
(100 CNR Contour) are shown in Figure 10. Tables II and III depict
Expected Response to Composite Noise Rating Levels and Land Use
Compatibility for Aircraft Noise. Pages 19-24 of the Palomar Airport
Master Plan EIR discuss acoustic conditions in the vicinity of the
airport.
Section IV. Significant Environmental Effects
Effects
The only significant adverse effect expected to occur as a result of
annexation will be an annyal loss of revenues to the County, estimated
as follows:*
Sales Tax $ 13,050
Aircraft Personal
Property Tax
(County's share of
this tax would de-
crease by 33%). 14,836
TOTAL $ 27,886
Inasmuch as the airport's operations will not change as a result of
the annexation no impacts on the physical environment will result.
Conceivably, if the airport did not annex and the City discontinued
its assistance with police, fire and emergency medical services, the
airport's protective/emergency services would be severly hampered.
* Based on 1975-1976 Fiscal Year Revenues.
.16February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 81 of 207
SURVEYED FEBRUARY 1974
/// = SURVEYED AUGUST 1974
= SPOT CHECKED ONLY
CZ . CLE* ZONE
IF = CURRENT LANDFILL
SCALE 1:24000
USCS SAN LUIS REY 7-1/2-INCH QUADRANGLE --
--,- •--
XX.-'. -:,-
V..'::-£ '"
— '"
ik - ~'T/* ^ ' ^'•~y>H.'-fV: Wx w - 310 Pf sTlc
Figure 9 Location and Area Surveyed
Archaeological Sites Source: San Diego County-
Palomar Airport Master Plan EIR
.17February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 82 of 207
o00inn
o\•H
O >i•P tr>fi OO HO O
S OU <DI EHoo (71
H C•H
-P 4J
M (1)
cudM a••H
IIo wrH W
Po
February 20, 2018Item #3 Page 83 of 207
,*•*""
Table II Chart for Estimating Response of .Residential
Communities from Composite Noise Ratin g
Composite Noise Rating
Takecffs and
Landings Runups
CNR
Zone Description of Expected Response
Less than 100
100 to 115
Less than 80
80 to 95
Greater than 115 Greater than 95
Essentially no con^?lair.i5 would b-j ex~cx::ed.
The noise may. however, interfere occa-; oa-
ally with certain activities of the residents.
2 Individuals may complain, perhaps vigorously.
Concerted group action is possible.
3 Individual reactions would likely include
repeated, vigorous complaints. Concerted
group action might be expected.
•m
m
<* •
*
Table in Land Use Compatibility Chart for Aircraft Noise
Composite Noise Rating
Takeoffs and " CNR
Landings Runups Zone
Less than 100 Less than 80 1
100 to 115 80 to 95 2
Greater than 115 Greater than 95 3
Land Use Compatibility
"etf
•3
C
•o
t)
Satis
Note
(B)
Unsat
>
"rt
•—CJ
oU
Satis
Satis
Note
(Q
"5
0; 2
—
HQ
Satis
Note
(Q
Note
(Q
VI•ton
^*"
.eavt
o -^
E-5
Satis
Note
(C)
U nsa t
VI
.eoi^
^U
.jd"« 2o —2 £r
u ^co z;
Note
(Q
Note
.(Q
Unsat
V)£
^J 'C
~ Q
o "^;
P <
Notes
(A.C)
Notes
(A. C)
Unsat
v>
W
• ' i^
— ' ^•*-* i^
C ^H
^ vTo 3
I |
O -5
Note
(A)
Note
(A)
Unsat
55
031J "^*
32U «J
CJ
5 ^>O v>-o c.- O
f^> "^~
Satis
Satis
Satis
0)
C
VI
•3C
Satis
Satis
Note
(Q
Notes: (A) - A detailed noise analysts should be undertaken by qualified personnel for all
indoor or outdoor music auditoriums and all outdoor theatres.
(B) - Case history experience indicates that individuals in private residences may
•complain, perhaps vigorously. Concerted group action is possible.
(Q - An analysis of building noise reduction requirements should be made and
needed noise control features should be included in the building design.'
Table IV Palomar Airport Annual
Aircraft Operations
Table v Peak Vehicular
Traffic
Year
1973
1975
1980
1990
Total
201.000
232.000
259, 000
402,000
Single
Engine
160,800
185.600
204,611
301.500
Twin
Engine
38, 190
44,080
49. 209
88.4-10
Jet
2.010
2.320
5.180
12. 060
Year
1073
1975
1930
1990
Peak Hourly
Vehicular Traitic
102
124
174
363
.19February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 84 of 207
In this instance, the County could provide police, fire, and
emergency medical services by other methods, but this couldn't
be accomplished as efficiently or economically as use of existing
City services.
Section V. Measures to Mitigate Significant Effects
1. The adverse economic impact to the County will be offset by:
a. An improvement in the level of police, fire and emergency
medical services; -
b. A decrease in insurance costs due to improved services
and a lower fire rating.
c. Increasing revenues from user fees.
2. Because the airport is operated by a governmental agency, the
City will gain no authority as a result of annexation over the
land uses which occur on the property. The need to coordinate
planning for the airport with surrounding properties has been
recognized, and the County has encouraged the City's review
of plans for the airport. Efforts to make the airport com-
patible with the surrounding area can be enhanced by:
a. Upgrading of the landscaping on the bare slopes adjacent
to Palomar Airport Road to mitigate the aesthetic
impacts on surrounding properties. Native or drought-
resistant plants should be used to mitigate water consump-
tion.
b. The County continuing to enlist the City's active part-
icipation in the planning and design of future airport
facilities.
Section VI Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided
There are no significant adverse- impacts associated with the annex-
ation of the airport which are unavoidable.
Section VII Effects Found Not To Be Significant
A. Physical Environment
The annexation will have no effect on the physical environment.
All physical impacts of the airport's existing and planned operations
have been covered in the Palomar Airport Master Plan EIR.
B. Biological Environment
The annexation will not impact the biological environment. Biological
impacts of the airport's existing operation and planned expansion .are
discussed in the Palomar Airport Master Plan EIR.
C. Human Environment
The annexation will have no effect on airport noise, energy consumption
.20February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 85 of 207
land use, archaeology, visual quality, archaeology traffic cir-
culation, water service or sewer service.
Section VIII. Alternatives
Since the airport is an existing use which will not be significantly
altered as a result of annexation, the possible alternatives are
limited to the following:
A. No Annexation (Services Provided on Present Basis)
This alternative would:
Prevent the loss of revenues to the County;
Keep police, fire and emergency medical protection services at
the present minimum level;
- Cause the City to expend money for services for which no revenues
are received;
Allow continued existence of a County island.
B. No Annexation (City to Discontinue Police, Fire and Emergency
Medical Service)
This alternative would:
Preclude City expenditures for services;
Decrease the level of protective services available;
Increase the County's costs for extending policef fire and
ambulance services;
Increase the insurance costs for the Airport)
- Allow continued existence of a County island.
C. No Annexation (City to provide police, fire and emergency
medical services on a contract basis)
This alternative would:
Increase administrative costs for executing and periodically up-
dating a contract;
- Possibly change the distribution of costs and revenues for
provision of services;
- Improve the level of services available to the Airport;
- Allow the continued existence of a County island.
21February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 86 of 207
D. Increase Area to be Annexed
This alternative would:
- Be in violation of the City's sewer moratorium ordinance;
- Allow the annexation of properties for which the City has
inadequate sewer service capabilities;
- Reduce the existing County island;
Increase property taxes on undeveloped and agricultural lands
which have no immediate development potential under the City's
General Plan.
Section IX Relationship Between Short-term Use and Long-term
Productivity
In the short-term, the airport has been able to function adequately
with the protective services presently available on an informal
basis. However, with the growth of the airport, these services are
becoming less and less satisfactory. Annexation appears to be the
most feasible method for improving existing services in the short-
term, and planning for expansion of those services in the long-term
concurrent with growth of the airport.
Section,X. Irreversible Environmental Changes
There will be no irreversible environmental changes as a result of the
annexation of the airport.
Section XI Growth Inducing Impacts
The annexation of the airport will have a minimal growth inducing
effect. In that all adjacent properties except a 156 acre parcel
west of the airport are already contiguous to City boundaries, the
annexation could enable only one annexation. That adjacent property
is shown on the City's General Plan as "Non Residential Reserve",
meaning that it is not appropriate for residential use and that
based on need, availability of services and'relationship to sur-
rounding areas -— the property is not ready for non-residential
development. .
Section XII Certification
•
To the best of my knowledge, this report represents an accurate
analysis of the potential significant environmental effects of the
proposed project.
DanaHieldwhitson
PROJECT PLANNER
C. TTcfgamapV
PLANNING DrREC2£5R
22February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 87 of 207
m ' *
Section XIII. Agencies and Persons Consulted•m
— City of Carlsbad
Frank Mannen, Administrative Assistant
~* Capt. Wally Rossall, Police Department
^ Battalion Chief Alex Wolenchuck, Fire Department,
County of San Diego
Lovell C. Hurlbut, Airport Manager
"*" Palomar Airport
^ Environmental Analysis Division
-•• San Diego Gas & Electric - Mike Dudley
DHW:ar
23February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 88 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. ,3 2 'f'fl - � �d @' -
DATE: N9vember 1, 1977
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
Subject: .PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION
Statement of the Matter
Initial:� Dept.Hd. ---c.Atty. \) ti3
C.Mgr. ---0--
The.City Council at its September 6, 1977 meeting, certified EIR 387 for the annexation of Palomar Airport. The Council asked for additional information concerning the benefits and liabilities of the proposed annexation.
The attached report to the City Manager discusses the benefits and liabilities of the proposed annexation as well as the extent of the City's control of the airport.
Exhibit
Report to City Manager dated September 29, 1977 with attachments
Recommendation
If the Council desires to proceed with the annexation, instruct staff to file an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission.
C0uncil action
11-1-77 Council agreed to proceed with the annexation and instructedstaff 1o file an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Exhibit 5
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 89 of 207
DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1977
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: IMPACT OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION
At its September 6, 1977 meeting, the Carlsbad City Council
certified EIR-387 for the Palomar Airport annexation. During
Council discussion, questions were asked concerning the benefits
of annexation to the City and what liabilities the City would
be accepting. The Council discussed the possible cost of
improving Palomar Airport Road and questioned what control, if
any, the City would have over future changes to the airport by
the County.
The following report will consider the points raised during
Council discussion and also provide revised estimates of the
revenues which would accrue to the City upon annexation Of the
airport.
BENEFITS OF ANNEXATION
Increased Revenues
As indicated in a report to the City Manager dated October 20, 1976
(copy attached), the primary benefit of annexing the airport was
the increased revenues which would accrue to the City. The revenue
figures in the October 20, 1976 report were based on 1975-76
fiscal year revenues. A revised revenue estimate based on 1976-77
fiscal year revenues is summarized below:
Sales Tax $26,012
Airport Personal Property Tax 26,020
Possessory Interest Tax 8,304
Business License Tax 1,020
$61,356
Greater Control Over the Airport
Government Code Section 65402(b) provides that the County shall
not acquire real property for any public purpose, nor dispose
of any real property, nor construct or authorize a public
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 90 of 207
Page 2
September 29, 1977
Subject: Impact of Palomar Airport Annexation
building or structure within the corporate limits of the City,
if the City has an adopted general plan, until the location,
purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such
building or structure have been submitted to and reported
upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction as to con-
formity with the adopted general plan.
In addition, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 requires that
prior to acquisition of land by the County for the purpose of
expanding or enlarging an existing publicly owned airport, the
County shall submit a plan to the City Council. The plan shall
show in detail the airport-related uses and other uses proposed
for the property to be acquired. Upon approval of the plan,
property acquisition may begin. The use of the property so
acquired shall thereafter conform to the approved plan, and any
variance from such plan, or changes proposed therein, shall be
submitted to the City Council for approval. Furthermore, the
County Board of Supervisors has adopted a policy (F-6) that
states, "Permits shall be secured from any incorporated city in
the county within which county projects or construction is to be
carried on."
When the County began proceedings to acquire land for a clear zone
at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road,
the requirements of the aforementioned statutes were met. On
January 15, 1974, the Carlsbad City Council approved Resolution
No. 3331 which found the acquisition and proposed use of 231 acres
located at the northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real was in conformity with the General Plan. On the same
date, Resolution No. 3332 was adopted which approved the expansion
of the airport (as required by Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6)
by the acquisition of the aforementioned acreage.
On April 1, 1975, the City Council reviewed the proposed Palomar
Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan provides guidance for the
ultimate development of the airport as well as the layout and use
of the proposed expansion area, most of which is already within
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 91 of 207
Page 3
September 29, 1977
Subject: Impact of Palomar Airport Annexation
the City. There is no indication that the City Council either
approved or disapproved the Airport Master Plan. However, the
staff was directed to prepare a statement reflecting the Council's
position on the proposed plan. In a letter dated April 16, 1975
to the County Board of Supervisors, the Council stated its
position that the airport should remain a general aviation
facility and that additional services, such as police, fire, and
additional sewer capacity would not be available prior to
annexation.
As indicated above, before the County may begin acquisition of
land for the expansion or enlargement of the airport within the
City of Carlsbad, a General Plan conformity finding pursuant to
Government Code 65402 is required. The County has, by letter
dated September 20, 1977, requested the City to make such a
finding. In addition, the County must meet the requirements of
Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 before acquiring property
within the City for expansion or enlargement of the airport. The
Airport Master Plan could be construed as the plan required to be
submitted by Section 21661.6. However, until the Master Plan,
or some other plan, is approved by the City, the County would not
be complying with the requirements of Section 21661.6. Upon
approval of the plan called for in Section 21661.6, the County
would be required to conform to the plan. Any changes or variances
from the approved plan would have to be brought to the City Council
for approval. It is the view of City staff, as well as County
Department of Airports staff, that the governmental facilities
constructed at the airport would not be subject to City zoning
regulations but would need to conform to the approved plan. However,
improvements constructed by lessees of the County would be subject
to City zoning and building regulations. If the Board of Supervisors
continues its Policy F-6, the construction of County facilities at
the airport would also be subject to the building regulations
of the City.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 92 of 207
Page 4
September 29, 1977
Subject: Impact of Paloraar Airport Annexation
Through the requirements of state law and the current policy of
the County Board of Supervisors, the City of Carlsbad will have
a fairly high degree of control over the development of Palomar
Airport. If the existing airport (that portion proposed for
annexation) remains in the unincorporated area, the City's
control will only extend to the proposed expansion area currently
within City limits. If the current City boundaries remain, a
situation will be created which will eventually find half the
airport in the City and the other half in the County. Such a
situation would likely create confusion for potential developers
and future lessees of the County and may tend to retard the growth
of the airport. Municipal services would not be supplied uniformly
at the airport if a split jurisdiction situation were to exist.
LIABILITIES OF ANNEXATION
The City would be required to supply a number of services to the
airport upon annexation. In the October 20, 1976 report to the
City Manager, the services to be supplied by the City were briefly
discussed. Further analysis of service demand placed upon the City
by the annexation of the airport has not indicated a need to change
any of the information in the October 20, 1976 report. Based upon
a limited history and insufficient data, it is not possible to
quantify the costs of supplying police or fire service with any
degree of validity. Estimates would be arbitrary and could vary
widely depending on certain assumptions being made. Nonetheless,
estimates have been prepared of the cost of supplying police and
fire service to the airport.
Fire service will be provided from existing fire stations and
annexation will not require specific additional manpower or equip-
ment to provide adequate fire protection. Although annexation of
the airport will not require an additional direct expenditure to
continue the existing level of fire protection, it would be appro-
priate to allocate costs to indicate the airport's share of overall
fire protection cost. If we allocate costs of fire protection among
land uses, approximately 30% of the developed land in the City is in
uses similar to the land use at the airport. If we assign 30% of
the annual fire budget for servicing developed nonresidential land
an allocation of $264,909 for the 1977-78 fiscal year would result.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 93 of 207
Page 5
September 29, 1977
Subject: Impact of Palomar Airport Annexation
A cost per acre for providing fire protection for developed non-
residential land can then be calculated and would result in a
cost of approximately $165 per acre. Multiplying the per acre
figure times the 256 acres in the proposed annexation would
indicate an approximate cost of $42,240 for airport fire pro-
tection based on the same service level as for other developed
nonresidential land uses.
Providing police service at the airport would not require an
immediate increase in staff or equipment but would incrementally
add to the need for an expanded Police Department. The Chief of
Police indicates that the airport should not initially create a
significant demand for police service. It is estimated that the
demand for police service will average from one to two hours a
day at the airport. This time estimate includes routine patrol,
assistance during emergencies, investigation of specific complaints,
and all other services. Based on an approximate cost of $18 per
hour for police service, the cost of police protection at the
airport would range from $6,500 to $13,000. The Chief of Police
would estimate the cost at approximately $10,000 annually.
If the County desires police and fire service at a higher level
(such as crash and rescue services) than normally provided to adjacent
industrial areas, the City could charge the County directly for
such service.
It should be noted that private lessees of the County would be
paying City property taxes on the lessee's possessory interest and
private improvements. These lessees would be receiving the same
level of police and fire service as adjacent industrial users on
privately owned land. Although the County would not pay property
taxes on its governmental facilities, police and fire service
would be provided at the same level as for adjacent property.
Sewer, water, and trash hauling are based on user chargers and,
hopefully, are self-supporting. The cost of enforcing the business
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 94 of 207
Page 6
September 29, 1977
Subject: Impact of Palomar Airport Annexation
license ordinance should be minimal and more than offset by the
revenue derived. No significant demand for leisure services
should be created by the annexation of the airport.
In the area of public works maintenance, the maintenance of
streets and other public improvements within the airport would
remain the responsibility of the County. The City of Carlsbad
would become responsible for the maintenance of that portion of
Palomar Airport Road that lies adjacent to the airport. Palomar
Airport Road is not developed to full City standards as a
prime arterial. The City Engineer has estimated that it would
cost approximately $810,000 to bring that section of Palomar
Airport Road adjacent to the airport up to full City standards.
Although Palomar Airport Road will eventually need to be developed
to full standards, it is not necessary to require improvements as
a condition of annexation. The City Engineer indicates that it
is not likely that additional travel lanes or major improvement
to the road will be required within the next five years. Dedication
of right of way and street improvements can be required as adjacent
property develops. As the airport itself expands, it is reasonable
to expect the County to contribute to the construction of improve-
ments on Palomar Airport Road due to the increased traffic generated
by the airport. Road improvements may also be financed through
assessment district proceedings. Since Palomar Airport Road is a
regionally significant arterial, when traffic volumes increase, it
may be possible to finance improvements using FAU funds or a
combination of funding sources may be utilized.
Although the cost of improving Palomar Airport Road to full City
standards will be substantial, it is not a cost that will be borne
entirely by the City. In fact, in accordance with existing City
policies, most of the improvements would not be directly financed
by the City.
FRANK 'N. MANNEN
Administrative Assistant
FNM:ldg
Att.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 95 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD k
AGENDA BILL NO . \3*7 fe^"
OCTOBER 3 1978DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1978
Initial i
Dept.Hd.
DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER
i 5
Sub j ect :
PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION
Statement of the Matter .
At its September 11, 1978 meeting, the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) adopted a resolution approving the annexation
of Palomar Airport to the City of Carlsbad. The annexation of
the Airport will be processed in accordance with the requirements
of the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, which substantially
revised the annexation process.
The next step in the annexation process involves the adoption
.of a resolution by the Carlsbad City Council initiating proceedings,
The resolution will establish a time and date for a public hearing
•to hear protests to the annexation. Since the airport annexation
involves only one landowner and is an uninhabited territory, the
only protest possible would be from the County of San Diego.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may order
the territory annexed if written protests have not been. filed by
the owners of more than fifty. (50) percent of the total assessed
value of land and improvements within the territory to be annexed.
Exhibit
Resolution No.7
Resolution of Local Agency Formation Commission Approving a
Proposed Annexation of Territory to the City of Carlsbad -
"Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No. 1.24) Annexation"
Recommendat ion
Adopt Resolution No.
proposed annexation.
Council Action':
setting a public hearing on the
10-3-78 Council adopted Resolution No. 5547, initiating proceedings
for the Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No. 1 .'24)
Annexation to the City Carlsbad, and setting the matter to
public h'eari ng.
Exhibit 6
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 96 of 207
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
RESOLUTION NO. 5547
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
'* CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INITIATING
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH
CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD. _
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California made application to
the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of Palomar
Airport to the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has designated
the proposed annexation as "Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No. 1.24)
Annexation to the City of Carlsbad" and a description of the
exterior boundaries of the territory to be annexed is attached
hereto as Attachment "A" ; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has determined
that the territory to be annexed is uninhabited in its resolution-
making determination; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is part of a large un-
incorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Carlsbad
and Carlsbad is the only agency which will be able to supply a
complete range of municipal services to the airport; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of annexation the Local Agency
Formation Commission in its Resolution approving the proposed
annexation required the description of the territory proposed for
annexation to be modified to conform with Attachment 'A1 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
-1-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 97 of 207
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the. City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on November 7, 1978 in the City Council
Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, to receive and
hear protests to the proposed annexation.
.
3. That any owner of land within the territory proposed to be
annexed may file a written protest again-st the annexation with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008 at any time prior to the conclusion of the City Council's
hearing on the proposed annexation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held the • 3rd _ day of October r
1978 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: NnnP ^~~ )
ATTEST:
Councilman Packard, Skotnicki, Anear, Lewis and
Councilwoman Casler
None
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
iLETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Ci£y Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 98 of 207
CA 77-50 .'IPAT,OMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION" to the City of Carlsbad
All those, portions of Lots A, F and G of Rancho Agua Hedionda,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, According
to Map Thereof No. 823 f:lcd in the County Recorder's Office
of San Diego County November 16, 1896, Lying within the
following described boundaries:
Beginning at the point of Intersection of the Westcvrly line
of that certain 90.00 foot strip of land described as
Parcel 68374-A in deeds to the County of San Diego, California,
recorded March 12, 1970 at File/Page No. 44690 and File/
Page 44691, Official Record of San Diego County and shown
on map of San Diego County Road Survey No. 1800-1, (El
Cainino Real), filed in the Office of the County Engineer
of said County, with the Southerly line of that certain
parcel of land designated "Palornar Airport" on Sheet 1
of Record of Survey Map No. 6493, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, said point of beginning
being-a point in the arc of a 1955.00 foot radius curve
concave Wc-s terly, a radial line to said point bears North
83°49'00" East;'
1. Thence along said Southerly line of Palomar Airport
South 79°07'43" West, (Record South 79°42'00" West)
to the Southeasterly line of Road Survey No. 1534
(Palomar Airport Road) Map on file in said County
Engineer's Office;
2. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
an angle point in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad
as established by their Resolution No. 3275 adopted
November 20, 1973 by the City Council of Said City;
3. Thence South 10°18"00" East along said city boundary
to the Southeasterly line of road survey 1534-66
(Palomar Airport Road) map on file in said County
Engineer's Office being an angle point in the boundary
of the City of Carlsbad as established by their
Ordinance No. 1172 adopted October 16, 1974 by the
City Council of said City;
4. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
the southerly boundary of said Palornar Airport;
ATTACHMENT 'A' OF RESOLUTION NO. 5547
Page .1. of 2February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 99 of 207
5. Thence along the boundary of said Palomar Air port-
as follows:
a. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2043.72 foot;
b. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.13 feet;
c. South 79° 07* 43" West, 2000.00 feet-
el. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.14 feet;
e. North 79° 07' 43" East, 6857.35 feet more or
less to the westerly line of road Survey No.
1534 (El Cami no Real) map of file in said
County Engineer' s Of flee being an angle point
in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad as.
established by their Ordinance No. 1101
adopted March 7, 1967 by the City Council
of Said City;
6. Thence South 38°45'17" East (Record South 38° 41'
East.) along said westerly line to the Easterly
prolongation of the Southerly line of said Road
Survey No, 1534;
7. Thence Easterly along said prolongation to the
easterly line of said road Survey 1800-1;
8. Thence Southerly along said easterly line to a
line which bears North 83°49'00" East from the
P o i n I: o f B e g i n n i n g.
9. Thence South 83° 49' 00" West to the Point of
Beginning.
ATTACHMENT 'A1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 5547
Page 2 of 2February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 100 of 207
' . Item 24
Ref: CA77-50
RESOLUTION OF LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVING A PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
"Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No. 1.24) Annexation
On motion of Commissioner Moore , seconded by Commissioner
McClellan , the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a proposal for the
initiation of proceedings for the annexation of territory to the City
of Carlsbad (hereinafter referred to as the City)
has been filed with this Commission (Local Agency Formation Commission
Reference No. CA77-50 ) as provided for by Government Code Section
54791; and
WHEREAS, the executive officer of this Commission has filed his
report relative to said proposed annexation, which report has been
reviewed and considered by this Commission; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVE'D THAT THIS COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES
AND ORDERS as follows:
1. The hearing was held on the date set therefor and due notice
of said hearing was given in the manner required by law.
2. At the hearing the Commission called for, heard and considered
all interested parties and read and considered the report of the
executive officer.
3. The territory proposed to be annexed as originally described
in the application for approval is as described in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
-1-
1/78
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 101 of 207
_
4. The description of the boundaries oi the Territory to be
annexed is not definite and certain, but may be made so if modifiec
to conform to Exhibit B attached hereto.
5. The description of the boundaries of the Territory —
conform(s) to lines of assessment and ownership.
6. The Territory includes 256 acres and is un inhabited.
7. The Territory proposed to be annexed is hereby designated
the "Palomar Airport "South Carlsbad No. 1.24)Annexation'-'
8. The Commission certifies that it has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the EIR prepared by the
City of Carlsbad.
9. The Commission hereby approves the proposed annexation
subject to the conditions, if any, stated on Exhibit C attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
10. The City of Carlsbad is authorized
to initiate proceedings in compliance with this resolution.
11. The executive officer of this Commission is directed to mail
and file certified copies of this resolution as required by law.
-2-
1/78
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 102 of 207
c
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Local Agency Formation Commission of tiie
County of San Diego this llth JaY of September, 1978 ,
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Chapman, Gorton, Karn, Lake
(for Morgan), McClellan and Moore
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hamilton and Morgan
ABSTAINING: None
-A- * * * Vc *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
I, MICHAEL J. GOTCH, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation
Commission of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby
certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original
resolution adopted by said Commission at its regular meeting on
September 11,1978 . which original resolution is now on
file in my office; that same contains a full, true and correct
transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and seal this llth day of September, 1978
MICHAEL J. GCttpH, Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 103 of 207
CA77-50 ^
"Palomar AirportSsfnnexation" to the City of Wirlsbad
DESCRIPTION OF SOUTH CARLSBAD ANNEXATION No. 1.24
to the CITY OF CARLSBAD, NOVEMBER 15, 1976.
All those portions of-Lots "F" and "G", Rancho Agua
Hedionda, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 823, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of said County
November 16, 1896, described as follows:
Beginning at Corner No. 3 of said Lot G as designated
on Record of Survey Map No. 6493, filed in the Office •
of the County Recorder of San Diego County;
1. Thence South 7° 34' 10" West a distance of 351.95
feet to the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly
line of the land designated Palomar Airport on said
Record of Survey No. 6493;
2. Thence South 79° 07' 43" West a distance of 2302.04
feet, more or less, to a point of intersection with
the Southeasterly right of way line of Road Survey
1534-66 (Palomar Airport Road) filed in the Office
of the County Engineer of said County;
3. Thence South 54° 26' 52" West along said South-
easterly right of way line of Road Survey 1534-66
a distance pf 255.62 feet;
4. Thence continuing along said Southeasterly right of
way line, South 53° 19' 36" West a distance of
736.95 feet to the beginning of a tangent 1937.00
foot radius curve concave Southeasterly;
5. Thence Southwesterly along said curve through a
central angle of 4° 33' 24" an arc distance of
154.05 feet to the point of intersection with the
Easterly prolongation of the Southerly boundary of
said Palomar Airport;
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 104 of 207
-2-
6. Thence along the boundary of said Palomar Airport
as follows:
a. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2043.72 feet;
b. North 10° 52!. 17" West, 1000.13 feet;
c. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2000.00 feet;
d. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.14 feet;
e. North 79° 07' 43" East, 6890.80 feet
to the Northeasterly boundary of said
Lot "G" as shown on Record of Survey
Map No. 6493;
7. Thence along said Northeasterly boundary South
38° 45' 17" East, 1319.60 feet to Corner No. 3
of Lot "G", said Corner being the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing therein 256.43 - acres.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 105 of 207
CA- 77-50 "PALOMAR >4RPORT ANNEXATION" to the G*±y of Carlsbad
All those portions of Lots A, F and G of Rancho Agua Hedionda,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, According
to Map Thereof No. 823 filed in the County Recorder's Office
of San Diego County November 16, 1896, Lying within the
following described boundaries:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly line
of that certain 90.00 foot strip of land described as
Parcel 68374-A in deeds to the County of San Diego, California,
recorded March 12, 1970 at File/Page No. 44690 and File/
Page 44691, Official Record of San Diego County and shown
on map of San Diego County Road Survey No. 1800-1, (El
Camino Real), filed in the Office of the County Engineer
of said County, with the Southerly line of that certain
parcel of land designated "Palomar Airport" on Sheet 1
of Record of Survey Map No. 6493, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, said point of beginning
being a point in the arc of a 1955.00 foot radius curve
concave Westerly, a radial line to said point bears North
83°49'00" East;
1. Thence along said Southerly line of Palomar Airport
South 79°07'43" West, (Record South 79°42'00" West)
to the Southeasterly line of Road Survey No. 1534
(Palomar Airport Road) Map on file in said County
Engineer's Office;
2. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
an angle point in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad
as established by their Resolution No. 3275 adopted
November 20, 1973 by the City Council of Said City;
3. Thence South 10°18"00" East along said city boundary
to the Southeasterly line of road survey 1534-66
(Palomar Airport Road) map on file in said County
Engineer's Office being an angle point in the boundary
of the City of Carlsbad as established by their
Ordinance No. 1172 adopted October 16, 1974 by the
City Council of said City;
4. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
the southerly boundary of said Palomar Airport;
EXHIBIT B
LAFCO Page 1 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 106 of 207
5. Thence along the boundary of said Palomar Airport
as follows:
a. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2043.72 feet;
b. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.13 feet;
c. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2000.00 feet;
d. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.14 feet;
e. North 79° 07' 43" East, 6857.35 feet more or
less to the westerly line of road Survey No.
(j,^^ I534- (El Camino Real) map of file in said
County Engineer's Office being an angle point
in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad as
established by their Ordinance No. 1101
adopted March 7, 1967 by the City Council
of Said City;
6. Thence South 38°45'17" East (Record South 38° 41'
East) along said westerly line to the Easterly
prolongation of the Southerly line of said Road
Survey No. 1534;
7. Thence Easterly along said prolongation to the
easterly line of said road Survey 1800-1;
8. Thence Southerly along said easterly line to a
line which bears North 83°49'00" East: from the
Point of Beginning.
9. Thence South 83° 49' 00" West to the Point of
Beginning.
Approved .: LoccJ A£2ncy Formation
:bn of San Ciogo
' - v-r(- '.' • , \_.z -----EXHIBIT B
D O .P O -^ Cf C":J ComTilPage 2 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 107 of 207
<*"*«•,
Ref: CA77-50
CONDITION(S)
The description of the boundaries shall be modified
to conform to Exhibit B attached hereto.
EXHIBIT
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 108 of 207
O
MAP 823- RANCHO AGUA HEDiONDA
X
DATE: |2_23-77
DRAWN BY:
MAPPING DIVISION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE
PALDMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION
TO THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAFCO:
AREA-. 256±AC
B/u 2 J 3-02
THOMAS BROTHERS- ] Q_
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 109 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. 3798 - Supplement No. 4 Initial:
Dept.Hd.
DATE: November •?-, 1978 ^ Atty>
DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER , c. Mgr. R
Subject: PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION
Statement of the Matter
At its October 3, 1978 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 5547, setting a public hearing to hear protests to the proposed
annexation of Palomar Airport to the City of Carlsbad. The hearing
has been properly noticed and is scheduled to be held at 7:30 p.m.
on November 7, 1978 in the Carlsbad City Council Chambers.
At the hearing, the City Council shall hear and receive any oral
and written protests, objections, or evidence which shall be made,
presented, or filed. Any owner of land within the territory to be
annexed may file a written protest against the annexation.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, 'the City Council shall determine the
value of written protests filed and not withdrawn. Not less than
thirty (30) days' after the conclusion of the hearing on protests,
the City Council shall adopt a resolution making findings regarding -
the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn and take one
of the following actions:
1. Terminate proceedings if written protests have been filed
and not withdrawn by the owners of land and improvements
who own not less than fifty percent (50%) of the total
assessed value of land and improvements within the territory.
2. Order the territory annexed if written protests have
been filed and not withdrawn by owners of land and
improvements who own less than fifty percent (50%) of
the total assessed value of land and improvements within
the territory.
i
Exhibit
Resolution No. 5547
i
-^—~~
Recommendation
Hold public' hearing. Upon conclusion of hearing, close the public
hearing and continue this item to the Council Meeting of December
19, 1978 at which time the Council may adopt a resolution making
findings regarding the value of protests and order the territory
annexed or terminate proceedings.
See Page 2 for Council action.
£
Exhibit 7
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 110 of 207
Agenda Bill No. 3798 - Supplement No. 4 Page 2
Council action:
11-7-78 Council directed staff to return at the meeting of December
19, 1978, with an appropriate Resolution approving the
annexation, said resolution to contain the appropriate
findings with regard to the written protests received.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 111 of 207
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
RESOLUTION NO. 5547
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INITIATING
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH
CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California made application to
the Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation of Palomar
Airport to the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has designated
the proposed annexation as "Palomar Airport (South Carlsbad No.1.24)
Annexation to the City of Carlsbad" and a description of the
exterior boundaries of the territory to be annexed is attached
hereto as Attachment 'A1; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission has determined
that the territory to be annexed is uninhabited in its resolution-
making determination; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is part of a large un-
incorporated island completely surrounded by the City of Carlsbad
and Carlsbad is the only agency which will be able to supply a
complete range of municipal services to the airport; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of annexation the Local Agency
Formation Commission in its Resolution approving the proposed
annexation required the description of the territory proposed for
annexation to be modified to conform with Attachment 'A1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
-1-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 112 of 207
1
2
2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
-7/ 3 ipublic hearing at 610-6 p.m. on November 1, 1978 in the City Council
Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, to receive and
hear protests to the proposed annexation.
3. That any owner of land within the territory proposed to be
annexed may file a written protest against the annexation with the
City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008 at any time prior to the conclusion of the City Council's
hearing on the proposed annexation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held the day of ,
1978 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 _ _ ____________
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ , City Clerk
19
(SEAL)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 113 of 207
CA 77-50 "PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION" to the City of Carlsbad
All those portions of Lots A, F arid G of Raneho Agua Hedionda,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, According
to Map Thereof No. 823 f.H.ed in the County Recorder's Office
of San Diego County November 16, 1896, Lying within the
following described boundaries:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly line
of that certain 90.00 foot strip of land described as
Parcel 68374-A in deeds to the County of San Diego, California,
recorded March 12, 1970 at File/Page No. 44690 and File/
Page 44691, Official Record of San Diego County and shown
on map of San Diego County Road Survey No. 1800-1, (El
Camino Real), filed in the Office of the County Engineer
of said County, with the Southerly line of that certain
parcel of land designated "Palomar Airport" on Sheet 1
of Record of Survey Map No. 6493, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, said point of beginning
being.a point in the arc of a 1955.00 foot radius curve
concave Wester I}', a radial line to said point bears North
83°49'00" East;"
1. Thence along said Southerly line of Palomar Airport
South 79°07'43" West, (Record South 79°42'00" West)
to the Southeasterly line of Road Survey No. 1534 .:
(Palomar Airport Road) Map on file in said County
Engineer's Office;
2. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line, to
an angle point in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad
as established by their Resolution No. 3275 adopted
November 20, 1973 by the City Council of Said City;
3. Thence South 10°18"00" East along said city boundary
to the Southeasterly line of road survey 1534-66
(Palomar Airport Road) map on file in said County
Engineer's Office being an angle point in the boundary
of the City of Carlsbad as established by their
Ordinance No. 1172 adopted October 16, 1974 by the
City Council of said City;
4. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
the southerly boundary of said Palomar Airport;
ATTACHMENT 'A' OF RESOLUTION NO.
LA FCC) Page 1 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 114 of 207
5. Thence along the boundary of said Paloraar Airnort
as follows:
a. South 79" 07' 43" West, 2043.72 feet;
b. North 10° 52' 17" West, '1000.13 feet;
c. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2000.00 feet;
d. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.14 feet;
e. North 79° 07' 43" East, 6857.35 feet more or
less to the westerly line of road Survey No,
1534 (El Carnino Real) map of file in said
County Engineer's Office being an anglf: point
in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad as.
established by. their Ordinance No. 1101
adopted March 7, 1967 by the City Council
of Said City;
6. Thence South 38°45'17" East (Record South 38° 41'
East) along said westerly line to the Easterly
prolongation of the Southerly line of said Road
Survey"No. 1534;
7. Thence Easterly along said prolongation to the
easterly line of said road Survey 1800-1;
8. Thence Southerly along said easterly line to a
line which bears North 83°49'00!I East: from the
Point of Beginning.
9. Thence South 83° 49' 00" West to the Point of
Beginning.
I
ATTACHMENT 'A1 OF RESOLUTION NO,
Page 2 of 2
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 115 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. 3 7 9f - ^u^faf*^ *^f. ^T Initial:^
TV Dept.Hd.
DATE: December 19, 1978
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
Subject:
PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION
Statement of the Matter
At its November 1, 1978 meeting, the City Council held a public
hearing to hear protests to the proposed annexation of Palomar
Airport to the City of Carlsbad. No written protests were filed.
In order to complete the annexation, the Council needs to make a
finding regarding the value of written protests filed and take
action to order the Airport annexed. Exhibit No. 2 is a statement
of the City Clerk indicating that no written protests were filed
by landowners within the territory to be annexed. By adopting the
attached Resolution (Exhibit No. 1), the Council may make the
required findings and order the airport annexed.
Exhibit
1. Resolution No. ^(g 37 making findings and ordering
annexation.
2. Statement of City Clerk regarding protests.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. ^5~^>3 7 •
Council action:
12-19-78 Council adopted Resolution 5637, making findings regarding
value of protests and ordering the annexation of Palomar
Airport.
Exhibit 8
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 116 of 207
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
I1?
18
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO, 5637
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MAKING FINDINGS
REGARDING VALUE OF PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT (SOUTH CARLSBAD
NO. 1.24) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a
duly noticed public hearing to hear and receive any oral and
written protests, objections, or evidence regarding the proposed
annexation; and
WHEREAS, no written protests were filed prior to the
conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission in its
resolution approving the annexation required the description of
the exterior boundaries of the territory to be annexed be modified
to conform with Attachment 'A1 attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That no written protests were filed.
3. That the description of the exterior boundaries of the
territory to be annexed have been modified to conform to
Attachment 'A1 .
///// /////
///// /////
///// /////
///// .. /////
///// /////
///// /////
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 117 of 207
4. That the territory described in Attachment 'A1 is hereby
ordered annexed to the City of, Carlsbad.
5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a
certified copy of this resolution to the Executive Officer of the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the T9th day December , 1978 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Packard, Skotnicki, Anear, Lewis and
CounciIwoman Casler
8
9
10
11
12
13
"RONALD c. PACKARD, Mayor14
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
X? tfot.-fi
15
16
IALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City/^Clerk
17 ^
(SEAL)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 118 of 207
t
CA 77-M) "PALOMAR AIRPORT ANNEXATION1'1' to the City of'Carlsbad
*
All those portions of Lots A, F and C. of Rancho Agua Hedionda,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, According
Lo Map Thereof No. 823 f:1.ed in the County Recorder's Office
of San Diego County November 16, 1896, Ly5.ng within the
following described boundaries: - .
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly line
of that certain 90.00 foot strip of land described as
Parcel 68374-A in deeds to the County of. San Diego, California,
recorded March 12, 1970 at File/Page No. 44690 and File/
Page 44691, Official Record of San Diego County and shown
on map of San Diego County Road Survey No. 1800-1, (El
Camino Real), filed in the Office of the County Engineer
of said County, with the Southerly line of that certain
parcel of land designated "Palomar Airport" on Sheet 1
of Record of Survey Map.No. 6493, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, said point of beginning
being.a point in the arc of a 1955.00 foot radius curve
concave Westerly, a radial line: to said point bears North
83"49'00" East;
:
1. Thence along said Southerly line'of Palomar Airport
South 79°07'43M West, (Record South 79°42'00" West)
to the Southeasterly line of Road Survey No. 1534 •" .-
(Palomar Airport Road) Map on file in said County
Engineer's Office;
•2.. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
an angle point in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad
as established by their Resolution No. 3275 adopted
November 20, 1973 by the City Council of Said City;
3. Thence South 10°18"00" East along said city boundary
to the Southeasterly line of road survey 1534-66
(Palomar Airport Road) map on file in said County
Engineer's Office being an angle point in the boundary
of the City of Carlsbad as established by their
Ordinance No. 1172 adopted October 16, 1974 by the
City Council of said City;
4. Thence Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to
the southerly boundary of said Palomar Airport;
ATTACHMENT 'A1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 5637/
Page 1 of 2February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 119 of 207
c
5. Thence along the boundary of said Paloruar Airport
as follows:
• a. South 79° 07' 43" West:, 2043.72 feet;
i . * _ • '
b. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.13 feet; '
c. South 79° 07' 43" West, 2000.00 feet;
d. North 10° 52' 17" West, 1000.14 feet; .
e. 'North 79° 07' 43" East, 6857.35 feet more or
less to the westerly line of road Survey No. .
1534 (El Canfino l»eal) map of file in said
County Engineer's Oi"fir:« being an angle: point
in the boundary of the City of Carlsbad as.
established by. their Ordinance No. 1101
adopted March- 7, 1967 by the City Council
of Said City; "
6. Thence South 38*45'17" East (Record South 38° 41' - :: V
East) along said westerly line to the Easterly
prolongation of the Southerly line of said Road
Survey No. 1534; ' . -
7. Thence Easterly along said prolongation to the . .
easterly line of said road Survey 1800-1;
8. Thence Southerly along said easterly line to a
line which bears North S3°49'00" East from the
Point of Beginning.
9. Thence South 83° 49' 00" West to the Point of
Beginning.
ATTACHMENT 'A' 'OF RESOLUTION NO. 5637
J.'«i{»e 2 of. 2February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 120 of 207
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 1978
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: WRITTEN PROTESTS - PALOMAR AIRPORT
(SOUTH CARLSBAD NO. 1.24) ANNEXATION
On November 7, 1978, the City Council held a public
hearing on the above-referenced annexation.
No written protests against the annexation were filed
by any landowner within the territory to be annexed
prior to the conclusion of said hearing.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
ALR:vm
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 121 of 207
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. £p 3 3 2 Jept^Hd!
DATE: August 5. 1980 _ C.
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk C- MSr-
Subject:
INITIATIVE PETITION
Statement of the Matter
An initiative petition has been processed in accordance
with requirements of the California Elections Code. The
signatures have been examined per Section 3708 of the Elections
Code, and the petition has been certified as to sufficiency.
According to Section 4010 of the Elections Code, Council
must now take one of the following actions:
1. Introduce the ordinance without alteration;
or
2. Immediately order a special election.
If Council so desires, Ordinance No. Q^TSf may be
introduced.
If Council desires to call a special election, Resolution
No. V(f 7,J ,1 and No. iij JT IL '/ may be adopted.
Exhibits
1. Ordinance No.
2. Resolution No. ^^fS^^,' calling the special election.
3. Resolution No. Ig^BBR-^' , requesting the consolidation
of the election wlt:h the presidential general election
to be held on November 4, 1980.
4. Memorandum from City Clerk dated August 5, 1980.
Recommendation
None
Fiscal Impact
The cost of a special election combined with the presidential general election
would be approximately $5,000.
Council Action:
8-5-80 Council introduced Ordinance No. 9558.
8-12-80 Council adopted Ordinance No. 9558.
Exhibit 9
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 122 of 207
-11
Q<CO
U54
cog
<N
d u. ^ %,i°Pg> > £
5- " =*i
fe|8d
Si "2
S£ 3> H oc
o
O
1
2
3
;4
:5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-\ -z13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 9558
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE f
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21 ,,44 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION
21.44.015 TO REQUIRE VOTER AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE EXPANSION OF ANY AIRPORT IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 21 ,__Chap>er~-ai^44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Codes is amended by the addition of Section 21.44.015
which reads as follows:
"21.44.015 Voter authorization required for airport
•expansion. (a) The City Council of the City of Carlsbad shall
not approve any zone change, general plan amendment or any
other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion
of any airport in the City of Carlsbad nor shall the City of
Carlsbad 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 of Carlsbad voting at an election for such
purposes.
(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."
*
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after 'its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council, held on the 5th day of August i 198C
and thereafter
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 123 of 207
3
. 4
:5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
d^ * * 14
I §• CK CM
E < 0>
2 H £ 2 -IKto n —, J-v)
Z Uj i—i **.r; o QLU 2 IN <jU rc - m
2O CO
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
„.an adjournedPASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at # regular meeting of said
City Council, held on the 12th day of August > 1980> by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
U •£ (?K • yy a
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City ClerkT"
(SEAL)
2.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 124 of 207
1 RESOLUTION NO.
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING,
3 PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON
4 NOVEMBER 4, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING
TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY AN ORDINANCE
5 RELATING TO REQUIRING VOTER AUTHORIZATION FOR
EXPANSION OF AIRPORTS, CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION
6 WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON SAID DATE.
7
8 WHEREAS, an initiative petition was processed in accordance
9 with the California Elections Code; and
10 WHEREAS, the signatures have been verified in accordance
11 with Section 3708 of the California Elections Code; and
12 WHEREAS, the petition has been certified as sufficient;
13 and
14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has
15 determined to submit the ordinance to the qualified voters of
16 the City of Carlsbad;
17 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
18 California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
19 as follows:
20 Section 1. That a special election be held and the same
21 is hereby called to be held in said City on November 4, 1980, for
22 the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said City an
23 ordinance hereinafter set forth relating to requiring voter
24 authorization for expansion of airports.
25 Section 2. The ordinance submitted to the voters shall be
26 as follows:
27 //
28 //
-1-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 125 of 207
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
"The City Council of the City of Carlsbad shall not approve any
zone change, general plan amendment or any other legislative enact-
ment necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the City
of Carlsbad nor shall the City of Carlsbad 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 of the qualified electors of the City of Carlsbad voting
at an election for such purposes."
Section 3. That the polls for said election shall be opened
at seven o'clock A.M. of the day of said election and shall remain
open continuously from said time until eight o'clock P.M. of the
same day, when said polls shall be closed, except as provided in
Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the State of California.
Section 4. That on the ballots to be used at said special
election, in addition to any other matters required by law, there
shall be printed substantially the following:
ORDINANCE:The City Council of the City of
Carlsbad shall not approve any zone change,
general plan amendment or any other legislative
enactment necessary to authorize expansion of any
airport in the City of Carlsbad nor shall the
City of Carlsbad 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 of Carlsbad voting at an
election for such purposes.
-2-
YES
NO
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 126 of 207
1 Section 5. That a cross (+) placed in the voting square
2 after the word "YES" in the manner hereinbefore provided shall be
3 counted in favor of the adoption of the ordinance. A cross (+)
4 placed in the voting square after the word "NO" in the manner
5 hereinbefore provided shall be counted against the adoption of the
6 ordinance.
7 Section 6. That the special election hereby called for the
8 date hereinbefore specified shall be and is hereby ordered
9 consolidated with the presidential general election to be held
10 on said date, and within said city the precincts, polling places
11 and officers of election for the special municipal election hereby
12 called shall be the same as those provided for said presidential
13 general election. The Board of Supervisors of San Diego County
14 is hereby requested to order the consolidation of the special
15 municipal election hereby called with said presidential general
16 election, and said Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to
17 canvass the returns of said special municipal election, and said
18 elections shall be held in all respects as if there were only one
19 election, and only one form of ballot, namely, the ballots used
20 at said general election, shall be used. Said Board of Supervisors
21 shall certify the results of the canvass of the returns of said
22 special municipal election to the City Council of the City of
23 Carlsbad which shall thereafter declare the results thereof. The
24 ordinance submitted by this resolution shall be designated on the
25 ballot by a letter printed on the left margin of the square
26 containing the description of the measure, as provided in Section
27 10218 of the Elections Code.
28 Section 7. That notice of the time and place of holding
-3-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 127 of 207
1 said election is hereby given and the City Clerk is hereby
2 authorized, instructed and directed to give such further or
3 additional notice of said election in time, form and manner as
4 required by law.
5 Section 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage
6 and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book
7 of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of
8 the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings
9 of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting
10 at which the same is passed and adopted.
11 Section 9. That this Resolution shall take effect
12 immediately.
13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
14 City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the day of
15 , 1980, by the following vote, to wit:
16 AYES:
17 NOES:
18 ABSENT:
19
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
20
ATTEST:
21
22
23 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
24 (SEAL)
25
26
27
28
-4-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 128 of 207
RESOLUTION NO.
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONDUCT THE
ELECTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON
4 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1930, AND TO CONSOL-
IDATE THAT ELECTION WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL
5 GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME
DAY.
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has called a Special Election
8 to be held in this City of Carlsbad on November 4, 1980; and
9 WHEREAS, Section 439.1 of the Administrative Code of the
10 County of San Diego authorizes the Registrar of Voters of the
11 County of San Diego to render specified services relating to the
12 conduct of an election to any city or district which has by reso-
13 lution requested the Board of Supervisors to permit the Registrar
14 to render the services, subject to requirements set forth in that
15 section; and
16 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad called an
17 election to be held on the same day in the same territory that is
18 in part the same; and
19 WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 23300)
20 Division 14 of the Elections Code the Board of Supervisors has
21 authority to consolidate public district, city, county, or other
22 political subdivision elections with each other and with a state-
23 wide election to be held on the same day; NOW THEREFORE
24 BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the above-cited provisions,
25 the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego is hereby
26 requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to perform and render
27 all services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the
28 conduct of the subject election of the City of Carlsbad, with
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 129 of 207
1 the cooperation and assistance of the City Clerk, such services
2 to include, but not to be limited to the following activities
3 as are appropriate to the subject election:
4 1. Furnish a tabulation of the number of registered
5 voters in each precinct.
6 2. Examine the signatures on nomination papers or
7 petitions of candidates for public office.
8 3. Establish voting precincts, secure locations for
9 polling places, secure the services of election officers for
10 each precinct as required by law, and furnish a list of precincts,
11 polling places, and election officers for filing in the Office
12 of the City Clerk.
13 4. Prepare and furnish to the election officers neccessary
14 election supplies for the conduct of the election.
15 5. Cause to be translated, as appropriate, and printed
16 the requisite number of smaple ballots, official ballots, polling
17 place slips, rosters, tally sheets, and other necessary forms.
18 6. Furnish and address the envelopes necessary to mail
19 sample ballots to the registered^boters^of the City of Carlsbad.
^•" i ••••i i •faf*^
20 7. Insert the sample ballots and other printed matter
21 into envelopes for mailing, and cause the same to be mailed,
22 as required by law.
23 8. Assemble the election material and supplies into
24 ballot bags and make necessary arrangements for their delivery
25 to the various precincts.
26 9- Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law.
27 10. Receive the returns of the elections and supplies.
28 11- Sort and assemble the election material and supplies in
-2-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 130 of 207
1 preparation for the canvassing of the returns of the election.
2 12. Canvass the returns of the election, including the
3 absent voter ballots.
4 13. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes given in
5 each precinct.
6 14. Make all arrangements and take the necessary steps to
7 pay the members of the precinct boards, the polling place rentals,
8 the persons returning the ballot bags, and to pay all other costs
9 of the election incurred as the result of services performed for
10 the City of Carlsbad and pay for the election officials the amount;
11 prescribed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego.
12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the exact form of the Ordinance
13 to appear on the ballot and to be submitted to the voters is
14 as follows:
15 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad shall not
approve any zone change, general plan amendment
16 or any other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize expansion of any airport in the City of
17 Carlsbad nor shall the City of Carlsbad commence
any action or spend any funds preparatory to or
18 in anticipation of such approvals without having
been first authorized to do so by a majority vote
19 of the qualified electors of the City of Carlsbad
voting at an election for such purposes.
20
21 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
22 the County of San Diego is hereby requested to consolidate this
23 election with the Presidential General Election to be held on
24 the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in
25 part the same.
26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if this consolidation is or-
r>7 dered, then pursuant to Section 23306 (and Section 23314, when
2Q applicable) of the Elections Code, (a) the election shall be
-3-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 131 of 207
held in all respects as if there were only one election; (b)
only one form of ballot shall be used; and (c) the Registrar of
Voters of the County of San Diego shall canvass the returns
4 of the subject election as part of the canvass of the returns
5 of the election or elections consolidated hereby.
6
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if this consolidation is or-.
8 dered, then pursuant to Section 23305 (and Section 23314, when
9 applicable) of the Elections Code within the territories affected
10 by this order of consolidation, the election precincts, polling
11 places, voting booths and polling hours shall, in every case
12 be the same, and there shall be only one set of election officers
13 in each of the precincts.
14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of San Diego shall
15 be reimbursed in full for the services performed by the Registrar
16 of Voters for this City of Carlsbad upon presentation of a bill
' ".""\
17 therefor and that this City of Carlsbad agrees to indemnity)and
18 to save free and harmless the County, its officers, agents and
19 employees from expense or liability, including reasonable
20 attorneys fees, as a result of an election contest arising after
21 conduct of this election.
22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk is
23 hereby directed to deliver forthwith certified copies of this
24 resolution to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County
25 of San Diego, and to the Registrar of Voters of the County of
26 San Diego.
27 I I I I I
28 I I I I I
-4-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 132 of 207
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND AODPTED at a regular meeting of the
2 City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the day
3 of , 1980, by the following vote, to wit:
4
5 AYES:
6 NOES:
7 ABSENT:
8
9
I RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
11 ATTEST:
12
13
14 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
15
16 (SEAL)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 133 of 207
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 1980
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: INITIATIVE PETITION
An initiative petition was filed with the City Clerk on Monday,
July 21, 1980.
Upon initial examination of the signatures, I determined that the
number of signatures, prima facie, was in excess of the number
required for filing a petition.
The signatures were then verified in accordance with Section 3708
of the California Elections Code, and the sufficiency of the
petition is certified.
The City Attorney has reviewed the form of the petition and has
indicated said petition meets the requirements of the Elections
Code.
The next step in the process is detailed in Section 4010 of the
Elections Code. It states that the legislative body shall
either:
(a) Introduce the Ordinance without alteration at the
regular meeting at which it is presented and adopt
the Ordinance within 10 days after it is presented; or
(b) Immediately order a special election, to be held not
less than 74 nor more than 89 days after the date of
the order, at which the ordinance, without alteration
shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the
City.
If Council chooses to call a special election, it could be com-
bined with the presidential general election to be held November 4,
1980.
Attached to the agenda bill are the documents which would allow
Council to proceed with either action. If Council desires option
(a), the Ordinance may be introduced. If Council prefers option
(b), it would be necessary to adopt the Resolutions.
LEE RAUTENKRANZ,
City Clerk
LR:adm
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 134 of 207
-
q[:itp of (:arl.sbab
Meeting of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL (Regular Meeting) August 5, 1980
Place of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER was made by Mayor Packard at 6:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL was taken by the City Clerk:
INVOCATION was given by Mayor Packard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member, Ann J. Kulchin.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting, held July 15,
1980, were approved as corrected.
PRESENTATION:
Mayor Packard read and presented a Resolution
to the Carl~bad Bobby Sox Minor League Allstars
in recognition of their outstanding .achievement
in sports and in honor of exemplary representa-tion of Carlsbad youth.
The Resolution was accepted by Gloria Girard,
Manager of the Bobby Sox who then invited the
Bobby Sox to present Council Members with an honorary hat.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Packard indicated he had received a
Request to Speak regarding Item No. 3 and a
Request to Speak regarding Item No. 7, and
removed those two items from the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Anear requested that Item No. 9
be removed from the Consent Calendar.
The following Items, with the exception of Items
No. 3, 7 and 9, were approved by one motion,
affirming the action of the Consent Calendar:
1. WAIVER OF ORDINANCE TEXT READING.
Council waived the reading of the text of all
ordinances and resolutions before Council at this meeting.
(50) 2. AB #6037 -RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS.
Council ratified demands against the City in
the amount of $1,702,180.90 for the period July
10, 1980 through July 25, 1980; and payroll de-
mands in the amount of $229,490.04 for the period
July 7, 1980 through July 20, 1980.
(99) 4. AB #6299 -Supplement #1 -CT 80-17/CP-83, SALEEN.
Council adopted Resolution No. 6253, approving
with conditions tentative subdivision map (CT 80-
17) for a 16 unit condominium project and approv-
ing condominium permit (CP-83) for said project o
property generally located on the southside of
Unicornio Street at Cacatua Street.
1-. 241
Present
Absent
Motion
Ayes
1-fotio'u
Ayes
COUNCIL
X xx
l
X
~ D{ X
X
XX X
IX
X
I
X
X
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 135 of 207
v
citp of (n;arMbab COUNCIL
Page 2
(IO61 5. AB {I5904 - Supplement #2 - UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 7. - .CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
Council adopted Resolution No. 6254, setting the Cime to be ready to connect to underground electric system in underground utility district
(74) 6. AB #6308 - RENEWAL OF COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL (45) .. SERVICES 'AGREEMENT.
(70) 8. AB #3552 - Supplenent #15 - MAGEE PARK (45) CONTRACT 1069.
Council accepted the work and directed the City Clerk to record the Notice of ComDletion and release the bonds 35 days after recordation.
(92) 10. AB #6311 - STEP 3 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
(45) PHASE I11 UPGRADING AND ENLARGEFGNT OF ENCINA.
Council adopted Resolution No. 62.56, approving and agreeing to a Master Agreement. for step 3 engineering services between Vista Sanitation
District and Brown & Caldwell for Phase 111 enlargement and upgrading of the Encina Water
Pollution Control Facility.
(81) X 11. AB #6287 - Supplement #1 - ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF SKAPELL SALES OFF'TCE.
Council adopted Resolution No. 6257, accepting the donation of a buil.ding from Shape11 Indus-, tries of San Diego, Inc., formerly used as a sales office for their Monarch Hills project.
Council accepted the work and directed the City Clerk to record the Notice of Comyletion and
release the bonds 35 days after recordation.
(29) X 13. AB 86312 - AMENDMENT OF THE 1980-81 BUDGET WATER POLLUTION.
Council amended the 1980-81 budget to reflect
expenditures of $247,511 for water pollution,
rather than $230,000 as previously approved, and.
transfer of funds for the amendment of the 1980-
81 water poliution budget for operation of the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility.
* adopted Resolution No. 6258, authorizing the
_"~ ~ ~ ~
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 136 of 207
Citp o€ Ql;arl$tmo COUNCIL
Page 3
of the Magee House.
ITEXS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
(99) 3. 'AB {I6298 - Supplement #l .- CT 80-16/CP-74
of a continuance of this matter to afford appli- cant and staff the opportunity to discuss an
adjustment to Condition No. 19 relating to the
maximum sel.ling ,price. Mr. Sandy explained the $75,000 maximum selling price agreed to by the
applicant represented approximately 80% of the
median price range of existing home sales at the
* present time. In this regard, the .applicant was
desirous of linking the maximum selling price of
these units to the median price range at the t.im
of sale. Yr. Sandy concluded this would allow flexibility in sales price, either. up or down, depending upon the market at the time of sale,
and would.protect ,both the applicant and the interests of the City.
Following brief discussion, Council directed
(74) 7. AB #6309 - REPORT TO COUNCIL ON CLASSIFICA-
TION CHANGES =QUESTED BY CCEA/AFS'CME Lo.ca.1 978.
Council recognized A. J. Skotnicki, 3535 Be.dford
Circle, Carlsbad, CA: Yr. Skotnicki indicated h
desired to address Council with regard to the
position of Deputy City Clerk only. Mr.
Skotnicki stated the City Clerk, as an elected
more than a secretarial position.
(63) 9. AB #6310 - AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - SERRA
(45) COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEM.
" ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~-~~~.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 137 of 207
atp of a8rlmao
Page 4
-
0
@
August
COUNCIL
Counci.1 Yember Cas ler acknowledged such concerns I indicating, however, since the Serra System had determined to not charge, if Council imposed a charge the advantages of the City's membership
may be affected. In this regard, Council Nember
Casler expressed an interest in a report in-
vestigating the effects of withdrawing from the
Serra System.
Council adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6265-, AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO-JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO
THE SERRA COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SYSTEM,
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
15. AB 86197 - Supplement #4 - GRADING ORDINANCE.
In response to Council inquiry, the City
Engineer indicated the Construction'Industry Federation had expressed satisfaction with the resolution of their concerns, as discussed
at. the prior meeting.
Council introduced the following Ordinance:
. ORDINANCE NO. 8086, AMENDING TITLE 11, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CMPTER 11.06 SETTING FORTH PROVISIONS FOR EXCAVATION AND GRADING.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
16. AB a6297 - PARKING RESTRICTI.ONS ON CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
The City Engineer pres-ented the staff report,
summarizing the relation of this matter .to
Councils' desire to provide additional beach
parking. With the aid of wall map exhibits, Mr. Evans illustrated location of Tierra del..Oro
and Shore Drive to the portion of Carlsbad
Boulevard where parking is currently restricted,
and explained drainage problems from the Encina
plant which currently prevent parking on the
east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, I
Mayor Packard then opened the public hearing
at 7:44 P.M. and extended the invitation to
speak.
Council recognized Ted 'Richmond, a representativ of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, who ex-
pressed concerns re parked vehicles,'w~~ck:sbs.tr"h:
the entrance to the Encina power plant. In
response to inquiry, Mr. Richmond expressed
the opinion the situation would be improved by
providing parking on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, with correction of drainage problems.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 138 of 207
Gitp of Qi;arl$U,aU
Page 5 COUNCIL
Council recognized George Carston, 5026 Tierra del Oro, Carlsbad who expressed the opinion the area along Carlsbad Boulevard in the vicinit: of Tierra del Oro and Shore Drive was used for parking by persons visiting Cannon Park. In this regard, Mr. CartstQn stated if. the City wer.e to allow parking there, the City would be liable for injury to any persons attempting to cross Carlsbad Boulevard to enter the park. Mr. Carstsn further suggested prohibiting fecrea- tiona.1 vehicles which.occupy more than one space,
0
Council then recognized Ed Valentine, 5019
. Tierra.de1 Oro, Carlsbad, who expressed the opinion if parking were allowed in the area referenced by Mr. Carsten the problems would be
I greater than those which originally prompted the
current parking restrictions.
Council recognized Bill Clements, 5021 Tierra de
Oro, Carlsbad who expressed the opinion if parking were allowed in the'subject area, it would contribute to illegal trespass and crime thereby increasing the cost to the City to police and protect homes in the area.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at. 7:Ol P.M.
In response to Council inquiry, the City Attorn€ indicated any question of liability should have
no bearing on,Council deliberations re removal
of parking restricrions. Council Member Casler
indicated many other persons in the beach area
are impacted by public beach parking.
I
I
Mayor Packard, expressed the opinion the City should expend. the funds necessary to provide parking on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard prior to allowing parking around residences. Council then discussed methods of maximizing. the efficiency of parking through striping the street for access, posting signs limiting time of parking and providing trash containers to encourage proper disposal of litter.
Council Member Casler indicated the parking
situation needed to be resolved immediately and
removing parking restrictions in the vicinity
of Tierra del Oro and Shore Drive was the
most expeditious method, of doing so.
A motion was made and seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 3119, with directions to staff to implement the controls discussed by Council. The motion failed for lack of majority.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 139 of 207
Citp of Cart$baD COUNCIL
Page 6
August 5, 1980
I Council adopted the following Ordinance:
I)
ORDINANCE NO. 3119, MBNDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.40 BY THE AWNDMENT OF
SECTION 10.40.042 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PARTS .OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, with the change on Page 1, commencing at line 17 to include restrictions on Carlsbad Boulevard between Tierra del Oro and Shore Drive.
It was additionally the consensus of Council
. .that the matter of parking between Tierra del Or and Shore Drive be placed on the next Agenda for
I consideration by a full Council. I (99) 17. AB #6313 - CT 80-13/CP-68' " APPLICANT: MAHI
CRISMAN.
The staff r'eport was presented by the Planning Director who, with the aid of wall map exhibits .depicting the project design, explained the development and design standard deficiencies of the project. Mr. Hagaman also noted the density was inconsistent with the General Plan,
~ I Mayor Packard opened the public hearing at 7 :30
P.M. and extended the invitation to speak.
e
Council recognized the applicant; Jeff Crisman, 3485 Valley, Carlsbad, who indicated the histoq
of the matterwas chronicled in the material whi
he distributed to Council. Mr; Crisman express€
the opinion the deficiencies were correctable ar
that the inconsistencies in the General Plan
zoning needed to be brought into line in order
to allow the applicant to achieve the desired 01
jective of providing affordable housing for low
and moderate income persons.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 7 :37 P.M.
Council acknowledged concerns re inconsistencie:
in underlying zones and discussed efforts re thc
General Plan zoning consistency project.
Council directed the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary documents to deny CT 80-13/CP-68,
as per Planning Commission Resolution 1662.
(99) 18. AB /I6314 - CT 80-25/CP-104 APPLICANT: ANDE
GROUP. . ~ ~~
. The staff report was presented by the Planning
Director who, with the aid of wall map exhibits depicting location and design of the project, . detailed the contents.of the July 9, 1980 Memorandum to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Packard opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak.
L
c
'5
S
2
N -
Il
dew$ tgOS@r,
$$@u
'4 \\\ v
!Totion 0
Aye s xxx
A
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 140 of 207
QCitp ot VLar1suaa
Page 7
COUNCIL
-
Council recognized Dale Naegle, San Diego, CA., who indicated he was the architect for this nroj ect. Mr. Naegle gave a slide presentation
illustrating the conceptual landscaping plans, comparative architectural designs and surroundim
area.
Council recognized Wilbur Stevenson, 2939 Cacatua, Carlsbad. Xr. Stevenson expressed concern with the future density in the area, specifically the additional 100 units proposed. by the applicant at a later time.
Council recognized Ken Adams, 3002 Unicornio I Carlsbad, who requested clarification re equestrian trails.
The Planning Director responded this condition was related to a condition of the. "Rancheros',' project which provides for a connecting equestrian trail, either at Melrose or Unicornio, .if the City desires the same,
Since no one else wished to speak, the public
In response to Council discussion, the Planning
dated July 31, 1980 which responded to concerns from residents impacted by this project. Also, Mr. Paul Graham, representing'the La Costa Land Company, remarked from the audience that' the plans to widen Alga between El Camino and Alicante, as stated in Mr. Roston's letter, were currently in the nlan check stage. 'Mr. Graham his principle was making every effort to accomplish these improvements as. soon as possi-
. . Director 'referenced a letter from Mike Roston
The staff report was presented by the Planning Director who, with the aid of wall map exhibits depicting project location and design, described project amenities.
Mayor Packard opened the public hearing at 8: 07 P.M. and extended the invitation to speak.
Council recognized Ted Richmond, representing San Diego Gas'& Electric Company who inquired if the applicant had .obtained the necessary ease-
ment from SDG&E.
I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 141 of 207
-
I)
0
&
aitp Ot VLaTlsuaa
COUNCIL
Page 8
5ust 5, 1980 7 48
1
Council recognized Frank Mola, 417 Nain Street,
Huntington Beach, CA .who indicated the easement was in the process of being granted, subject to negotiation of necessary agreements.
There being no further desire to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8: 08 P "M..
With regard to Condition No. 41 of Planning
' Coinmission Resolution 1665, Council Member Anear
for emergency vehicles.
The City Manager responded one of the advantages
required to provide maintenance and policing. Mr. Aleshire additionally indicated allowing
private streets for these reasons was an es- tablished Council policy. The City Engineer .addtionally explained the width of the street, the amount of room which would be required for parking on the south side and indicated if parking restrictions on the north side were violated, there would remain sufficient width to allow emergency vehicle access:
. of private streees is that the City is not
(.99)1 20. AB $16319 - CT 77-8(A)/CP-45 APPLICANT: MOLA .
Council recognized Frank Mola, 417 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA who indicated he would be happy to respond to any questions.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public
. RECESS
Mayor Packard announced recess at 8:21 P.M. and
~~ ~ ~ ~~"~~"~ ~"_~~~_~"~- -~~~~~- ~ ~ ~
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 142 of 207
QCitp of 4l;arLSwi~
COUNCIL
Page 9
249 August 5, 1980 r
..
The staff report .was presented by Charles Grimm who, wi.th the aid of transparencies and
slides, explained the area addressed by the
EIR and illustrated the existing environment. # , Mr. Grimm also explained the vernal pools would
be maintained by the applicant in open space until precise mitigation measures were decided by the Army Corp of Engineers, who have juris-
.' diction over same: With regard to the 105 acr of open space, as reflected in the EIR, Mr. Gr explained a satellite sewer plant, as proposed
. would reduce this acreage to 87. Any impact on endangered plant species that may exist. in the area would be considered in a site-specific EIR for any plant.
Mayor Packard opened the pub1i.c hearing at 8 ;44
P.M. and extended the invitation to speak,
Council recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the .Koll Company, with offices in Carlsbad and San Diego. Mr. Fipp recommended Council certifica- tion -5 the EIR.
Since no one else wished to speak,' Mayor Packard closed the public hearing at 8:45 P.M.
Council certified EIR 80-3 as meeting the
spirit and intent of the Environmental
Protection Act of 1970.
The staff report was presented by Charles Grimm, who detailed the contents of the July 23, 1980 Memorandum to the City Xanager.
Mayor Packard opened the public hearing at 8:49 P.M. and extended the invitation to. speak.
Council recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the Koll Company who requested Council approval.
Since,no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8: 50 P.M.
For the record, the Planning Director indicated the Resolution, adopted by the .Planning
Commission recommending Council approval, No. 1651, had been inadvertently-omitted from the
Council Agenda Packets.
Council directed the City Attorney to prepare
necessary documents approving GPA-50(A), per
Planning Commission Resolution 1651.
1
(57) 23. AB $,6320 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-50(B)
The staff report was presented by the Planning Director as contained in the Statement of the
Mayor Packard opened the public hearing at 8: 55
P.M. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 143 of 207
ditp of cartsoau
Page 10 COUNCIL \qf .9,'s,dg
August 5, 1980 750 \r
Council directed the City Attorney to prepare
per Planning Comiss'ion Resolution No. 1653. xxx Ayes the necessary documents approving GPA-50(B) p as X Motion
I).
(11 2) 24. AB /I6258 - Supplemerit. #2 - WEED ABATEMENT
COST REPORT CT)NF'IRMAT I.ON .
The City Manager presented a report on the
only to those persons from whom.authorization
' - Council adopted the following Reso.lution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6259, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE UTILITIES/MAINTENANCE
MENT AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF UND IN
SAID REPORT, CONFIRMING THE COST AND PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION THE' REGULAR
DIRECTOR SHOWING COST OF WEED ABATE-
(28) SPECIAL MEETING OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT C OMMI'S S'I.ON .
Council adjourned at 8:54 P,M. to a Special Meeting of the Ho,using and Redevelopment Commission.
Council reconvened at 9:00 P.M. with four
Members present.
(93) 25. AB 86316 - LAKE CALAVERA HILLS REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 142 EDU'S FROM ENCINA CAPACITY, 0 A brief staff report was presented by the C i ty Manager .
Council adopted the following Resolution:
1
RESOLUTION NO. 6260, APPROVING THE
TEMPORARY ASSIGmNT OF 142 EDU'S OF ENCINA SEWER CAPACITY TO CT 76-12.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 144 of 207
citp Ot clLar1suau
Page 11
-
#
1
0
COUNCIL
. (92) 26. AB $/6317 - LAKE: CAZAV'E;RA WLLS SE'FER SERVICE AREA - PLANKING AND BUILDING MORATORIA,
The City Manager presented the staff report.
27. 'NUMBER NOT USED
(47) 28. AB #5861' - Supp1emen.t #2. -MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.
,The staff report was presented by the City Engineer who, with the aid of wall map exhibits illustrating the alternative approaches discussed in his July 25, 1980 Memorandum,
explained the pros and cons of same.
Council recognized Bob Ladwig, of Rick
Engineering, 3088 Pi0 Pico, Carlsbad. Mr.
Ladwig expressed approval of the staff
recommendation, inquiring, however, if a de-
veloper could provide his own drainage.
The City Engineer responded affirmatively,
Following brief discussion, Council directed ,staff to prepare the necessary docu-
. ments to 'implement the Master Plan of Drainage in accordance with the recommended approach creating 13 districts.
(92) 29. AB $16326 - PALOMAR WASTE WATER RECMATION FACILITY.
The staffsreport was presented by the City
Council recognized Bernie Fipp, principal of the Koll Company,. who presented Council with checks for $20,000, and indicated 89% of property owners in the subject area had contributed. He also presented a petition signed by all contributors, with the exception of La Costa Land Company, which petition requested construction of the improvements and. a feasibility study to be conducted as to an assessment district, which study would be
. funded by the $20,000.
. The City Attorney adv5sed acceptance of the offer did not constitute an approval of any plant, or approval of any assessment district --
Council authorized the Mayor to the sign
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 145 of 207
Cttp Ot YLar15uaa
Page 12
-
I)-
,,
e
August 5, 1980
The staff report was presented by the City Manager .
Council Member Anear expressed concerns that
the request for additional funds was in part
predicated on the assumption that the Bingo
.' operations would be self-supporting. Council
Member Anear indicated his knowledge of Bingo operations was that they frequently failed as a result of a lack of volunteers, In this regard, he suggested the initial equipment be rented rather than purchased.
In response, Council recognized Jack Jimnick, President of the Association, 258 Beech Street, Carlsbad.. Mr. Jimnick indicated the possibility of renting equipment had not been investigated, however, assured Council there .would be sufficient volunteers to operate the Bingo games.
1 j
Council adopted the following Resolution:
1 RESOLUTION NO. 6261, APPROVING AN AGREENENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND THE CARLSBAJJ SENIOR CITIZENS'
ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREETflNT.
I Council adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6262, AUTHORIZING
THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS' PROGRAMS, with the additional direction to staff: investigate the possibility of renting the initial Bingo equipment,
City Clerk
$2)
31. AB /I6322 - INITIATIVE -PET.ITION
The staff report was presented by the City
Clerk, who explained the random sampling method formulated by the Secretary of State
to determine the sufficiency.of qualified signatures. The Clerk,indicated that based on the results'of the sampling, the petition has been certified.
Council discussion reflected the.ir feeling that
if the matter were placed on the ballot, it would be approved by che voters.
A Request to Speak having been filed, Council recognized Guy Casey, 2122 Subdia Terrace, carlsbad. Mr. Casey indicated action by Council as suggested in their discussion would be an opportunity to save the cost of an election and would reflect an acknowledgment by Council of the desires of the people.
-..
I
-L
COUNCIL
..
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 146 of 207
cttp Ot VLBrlBuau
Page 13
COUNCIL
-
I)*
0
Mayor Packard questioned the effeets, if any, of adoption of the ordinance on the approved Master Plan of the airport. ,
property would not be affected.
Counc.il introduced the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 9558, AXENDING TITLE
-OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION- OF
SECTION 21.44.015 TO REOUIRE VOTER AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXPANSION OF
ANY AIRPORT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
(31) 32. AB $16325 - TRANSFER OF BUSINESS. LICENSE
OPERATIONS' TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
'The City Manager presented a brief report on the matter.
Council introduced the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 6061, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD NUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS SECTIONS TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE PERSON RESPO%TSIB'LE FOR BUSINESS LICENSE COLLECTION.
Central Services
(.69) 33. AB 1,6303 '- PARKS & RECFEATION COPTMISSION
APPOINTNENT .
Mayor Packard announced his intention to
(103) .34. AB a6304 - TRAFFIC SAFETY %OMXISSION
APPOINTHENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 6250, APPOINTING A XEMBER TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COmISSION (such member being Wesley Terry for a term expiring July, 1982. ]
CITY COUNCIL ADDITONAL BUSINESS:
Assembly BTll 1143
Mayor Packard referenced the letter from Larry
. . Bagley, Mayor of Oceanside, requesting Council
endorsement of AB 1143 re state funds to assist with beach erosion.
Council directed this item be added to the current Agenda.
'
I
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 147 of 207
Cltg ot VLar1suau
Page 14 COUNCIL
I
I)
e
August 5, 1930 254
t
(62) Council endorsed Assembly Bill No. 1443. Mot ion
Ayes xxx Proposed Water Merger - Carlsba'd Municipal Water District & Costa Real Muni'cipal' Wat'er Dis'trict.
Mayor Packard referenced a letter requesting that each party appoint two members to a committee to discuss ways and means of putting together
a public utilities type of commission.
.. It was the consensus of Council that Council Members Anear and Lewis, as the previously- appointed Council steering committee for the
. water merger, also act as requested,
The City Manager distributed copies of a letter
from Dennis Reid, Encina General Manager, which advised that state funds have been cut off as a result of the inspection maintenance require- ments of the State which have not been met. Mr. Aleshire indicated Mr. Reid urged that all Cities take action to have the funds reinstated.
-.
Mayor Packard reported on the special meetings re negotiation of salaries and benefits, He
additionally reported on the results of the review of the,request of residents at Lanakai
. Mobilehome Park tovre-establish direct pick up and drop off to the Park. Mayor Packard indicated the review concluded the number of
passengers from Lanakai did not justify such.
Historical Society
Council Member Casler reported on the agreement of the Historical Society to allow the Senior
I Citizens to use one room of Magee House.unti1
compLetion of the Old City Hall.
Council Member Casler reported on the library
summer programs.
The City' Manager advised the Council that if
City for low income senior citizens.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 148 of 207
vr
-
m
1.
e
dit? Ut &arl8Ua4 COUNCIL
(25) Annexation Tax-Split. Issue
Council adopted the foll*owing Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 6263, URGING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE CITIES WITH AN EQUITABLE- PRO RATA SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES UPON ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPOUTED TERRITORY .
Council adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. "6.264, URGING THE
TO ADOPT A POLICY TO SHARE PROPERTY TAXES ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS WITHIN ANNEXED AREAS.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council adjourned to an Executive Session at 10:33 P.M. for the purpose of discussing personnel and. litigation matter .
Council reconvened at 11: 04 P .M, 'and the. Mayor announced personnel and litigation had been
' . -discussed and'the following action would be
(351 Council authorized Roger Krauel to represent the City of Carlsbad in the case of "Dautrich'
v. The Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System" and authorized the City Attorney to pay for that representa- tion from his professional services account,
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
CITY CLERK
Anita D. Murphy,
. Recording Secretary
non-residents,
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 149 of 207
. ..
6'
L *-c .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
f
s
1c
11
1:
2(
2:
2:
2:
21
2!
2t
2'
2(
ORDINANCE NO. 9558
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.44 OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION
21.44.015 TO REQUIRE VOTER AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE EXPANSION OF ANY AIRPORT IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
ordain as follcws:
SECTION 1: That Title 21, Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Codes is amended by the addition of Section 21.44.015
which reads as follows:
"21.44.015 Voter authorization required for airport
expansion. (a) not approve any zone change, general plan amendment or any
other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion
of any airport in the City of Carlsbad nor shall the City of
CarZsbad 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 of Carlsbad voting at an election for such purposes.
adopted by the vote of the City Council witho-iit submission to
the voters and it shall not be repealed or amended except by
a vote of the people."
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad shall
(b) This section was proposed by initiative petition and
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adopticn, and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council, held on the 5th day of Auclust 19E
and thereafter
/// /// /// ///
Exhibit 11
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 150 of 207
an adjourned
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at regular meeting of said
City Council, held on the 12th day of Auqust , 1980, by
the fo1lowir.g vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None
Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchin
ABSENT: None
ATTEST :
06 ??e {QAA ALETHA L. RAUTENKRA Z, City Clerk
(SEAL)
2.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 151 of 207
- A- ..
q. .. ** e a
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1699
3 ~ I1 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
PORT ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL. #
6
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - DEPARTMENT 5
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOWR AIR -
OF TRANSPORTATION . .cy-iE No:' . . . . . cupc17.2' ' '
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WHEREAS, verified application has been filed with the
City 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 Codt
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, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County.
I* I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
19 I consldering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all perso:
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CUP-172.
20
21
22
23
NOF7, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public heari the Commission recommends' APPROVAL of CUP-172, based on following findings and subject to the following conditio
1
PC RESOL #I699
I
Exhibit 12
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 152 of 207
^.
4. " I. a 0
1 Findings :
2 to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
3 proposed use is to be located.
4
!j
6
3) That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscap:
and other features necessary to adjust the requested use
7
existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood wi:
8
be provided and maintained.
1) That the requested use is compatible with existing uses c
2) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use.
4) That the street system serving the proposed use is adequ(
to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Conditions
1) 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 Plann
Depar'tment. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2) This project is approved upon the express condition that bulldi'ng 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.
17 in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall
18 require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of such signs.
I'
20
~ 4) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot hig
masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. LOC
21
tion of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planni
Department.
22
23
24 6) Approval of this request shall. not excuse compliance wit
25 all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli
cable city ordinances in effect at time of building perrr
3) Any signs proposed for this development shall be designe
5) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shal be archftecturally integrated and shielded from view fro
adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of t
Planning Department and Building Department.
26 II lssuance. "
27
28
PC RESOL #1699
-2- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 153 of 207
* AI 1 .= -* Ij e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
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 bri
this application back to the Planning Commission for the
review. At that time, the Planning Commission has the
discretion to set the matter back to public hearing wher
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 th
as outlined in Table 1, dated September 24, 1980, and incorporated herein by reference. Approval of any uses not specsfically listed in Table 1 and/or expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
91 Unless otherwise stated herein, all rules and regulatior
of the T4 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 unles:
an amendment to this CUP is approved by the Planning Con
mission.
12) At the time of the issuance of any building permits for
new construction or alterations to existing structures,
private individual lessee shall pay a public facility fc
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 thc
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, helc
on the 24th day of September, 1980, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioner Schick, Jose, Larson, Leeds, Friest
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
and Rombotis.
ABSTAIN : None.
\\ -
CARLSBAD PLANNING c'oId'4Iss
SBAD PLANNING
u
%& RES0 #1699 -3- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 154 of 207
w .-.
.. 0 0
TABLE 1 .
.. September 24, 1980
I. The lollowing uses are Germitted 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 the airport and to the. control o,f air
traffic in relation thereto, include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following:
(1) Taxiways and parking aprons, including lighting.
(.2] Aircraft hangars, ti'e-down areas and maintenance
4.
buildings.
(3) Air traffic control towers and facilities.
(-4) Nav.igationh1 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-
a.1l.y operated for the convenience of the users of terminal facflities.
. . (-7) IIeliports.
(8) Aviation fuel farms.
(.9) Automobile parking. lots and structures.
(lo) Buildings for housing operations 'and equipment
necessary to the maintenance, security and safety
of the airport.
b. Commercial Activities
~ommercial. aviation activities as follo~~s.:
(1) Aviatio'n flight and ground schools, including
pilot and student equiprnent sales.
. (2) Aircraft sales, including radio and navigational equipmcnt, parts, supplies and accessory equip- .
men t .
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 155 of 207
.I *E .. - e 0
(3) Aircraft hangar and tie-down rentals.
(4)' Aircraft leasing, rental and charter.
(E;) Airframe, engine, radio, navigational and acces-
sory equipment repair, maintenance and modifica-
tion.
..
(6) Aircraft ground support equipment repair, main-
tenance and modification.
17)
(8 1
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)'
Aircraft cleaning services.
Aircraft painting.
Aviation fuel facilities.
Aircraft and engine mechanic schools.
Airlines, scheduled- and non-scheduled.
Air taxi and air ambulance services.
Air freight terminals and trans-shipment facilities.
Aerial crop dusting and spraying' enterprises,
(15) Aerial fire fighting.
(16) Aerial photography and surveying.
(17) Parachute rigging sales and service.
11'. 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 14 Zone.
111. The following uses are alloved if the Planning. Director . det.ermines they are consistent with and related to the
airport Eacility:
a. Signs - Identification, directional and safety '
-
signs.
b. A single-family dwelling occupied exclusively by a
.ca.retaker or superintendent of such use and his
family.
r3H : -j t
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 156 of 207
CIT OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB* 7681- #1
MTG V3/84
DEPT Council
TITLE: REQUEST TO COUNTY FOR A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT LIMITING OPERATIONS AT
MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
DPPT HD.
CITY ATTY\]FA
CITY MGR.
a.a.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No.
to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement limiting operations at McClellan-Palomar
Airport.
requesting San Diego County
STATEMENT OF MATTER;
The City Council is on record that the operations of the airport shall be
limited to that of general purpose aviation. The attached Resolution would
request that the County of San Diego, who owns and operates the airport, to
enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Carlsbad and other affected cities to
limit the level of operations and the nature of airport facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS :
Resolution No.
Palomar Airport.
, requesting Joint Powers Agreement regarding McClellan-
oo:a.a.
oI
o
Exhibit 13
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 157 of 207
RESOLUTION NO. 7558
RESOLUTION REQUESTING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
REGARDING McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
V-
WHEREAS, there is substantial concern among the citizens of
this City concerning possible expansion of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport by an increase in operations or improvement ^
in airport facilities which would thereby lead to an
increase in airport noise and greater safety risks to the
detriment of the citizenry; and
WHEREAS, there is substantial confusion as to the intent of
the County of San Diego, the proprietor of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport, regarding possible expansion of the airport
or increases in the level of operations. In particular some
county officials have disclaimed any intent to expand the
r
airport while at the same time the Board of Supervisors on
January 31, 1984 granted approval to Air Resorts, Inc. to
commence scheduled commuter air service using A5 passenger
Convair AAO's.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that:
1. The City of Carlsbad requests the
County of San Diego to enter into a joint powers agreement
pursuant to Government Code section 650C et seq. with the
City and other affectec cities to formally define and limit
1.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 158 of 207
the level of operations and nature of airport facilities
through a binding agreement enforceable by all parties; and
2. The provisions of such a joint powers agree-
ment and binding agreement should include:
a. Retention of the McClellan-Palomar Airport as
a general aviation facility;
b. Provisions preventing expansion of airport
facilities such as the addition of a second runway,
extension of the existing runway, or upgrading of
airport facilities such as fire rescue facilities,
fencing, parking or land acquisition in order to obtain
a Certificate of Operation from the FAA;
c. Abandonment of the conditional authorization
to begin scheduled commuter air service; and
d. Provisions for a maximum SENEL in any res-
idential area of 78 dBA.
April >
Adopted this 3rd day of/19B4 by vote of
aye and Q no.
MAYOR /
2.3February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 159 of 207
Cl\, OF CARLSBAD — AGENbM BILL
AR# 71>?I~*3.
MTR 7/2/85
DEPT C.A.
TITLE-PALOMAR AIRPORT JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTvVtZJ
CITY MGR.r^^
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council adopt Resolution No.
Palomar Airport Joint Powers Agreement
approving the
ITEM EXPLANATION
The Cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista have
been negiotating for some time with Supervisor Eckert, and
County Officials regarding a proposed joint powers agreement
for Palomar Airport. We think those negiotiations have been
successfully completed and that an agreement is ready for
adoption by the City Council. After all the cities have
approved it, it will be submitted to the Board of
Supervisors for their approval.
The agreement provides that the County may not expand
Palomar Airport without the unanimous consent of the Cities.
The Cities are obligated to recognize the airport influence
area as shown on the comprehensive airport land use plan and
incorporated into their respective General Plans.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the County wishes to expand the airport and the Cities
refuse to consent and if that results in the County being
liable for damages the City will be jointly and severably
libable with the County. The City would be responsible for
its proportionate share of the damages which could be paid at
a rate of no more than $10,000 per year. It is not possible
to predict whether or not this provision will ever result in
any costs to the City.
EXHIBITS
Resolution No.0 */
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Exhibit 14
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 160 of 207
COin
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lt|§ 15
^ > §0
z ^ 8 Q 16
O 0- ~ CQ
Z P W . ~>t b^ 17
i3 -19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.8104
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE
\ CITIES OF OCEANSIDE, VISTA, SAN MARCOS AND
\CARLSBAD CONCERNING McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT.
\
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego and the cities of\\Oceanside, Vis£a, San Marcos and Carlsbad have reached an\\^
agreement regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport operations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That certain agreement between the County of San\
Diego and the cities of Oce^nside, Vista, San Marcos and\
Carlsbad regarding McClellan-P^lomar Airport operations marked
Exhibit A and made a part hereof\ is hereby approved.
2. That the Mayor of the \ity of Carlsbad is hereby
authorized and directed to execute sai^ agreement for and on
\
behalf of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a \egular meeting of\
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the day of , 1985\l?y the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 161 of 207
EXHIBIT
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF
CARLSBAD, OCEANSIDE, SAN MARCOS AND VISTA
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day
of , 1985, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
State of California, a political subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the Cities of
CARLSBAD, OCEANSIDE, SAN MARCOS, and VISTA, all municipal corpora-
tions of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as
"CITIES".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the COUNTY owns an airport in northern San Diego
County known as the McClellan-Palomar Airport (hereinafter referred
to as the "Airport") which was aegtJijfed--£5?efB--fehe-'fedeeal-§Qve^h}ReBfe-
w±th-ri-deed-ifeatif-i€fc-ien--fehafc—it—eseei-€ejf—aijfgeirt-ptirpesesr-and
constructed in part -with County funds along with a Federal Aviation
Gran* . A condition fov receiving said Grant provided that tho
Airport be utilized for airport purposes; and
WHEREAS, the CITIES have a concern that the Airport will be
expanded in a manner which would lead to an increase in Airport
noise; and
WHEREAS, the Airport does not have an incompatible land use as
defined by State Noise Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Airport has been granted a limited Airport Operat-
ing Certificate by the Federal Aviation Administration; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has eliminated the second runway from the
Airport master plan; and
LMH:rcl
6/24/85
— 1 —February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 162 of 207
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has eliminated any extension in length of
the single runway from the Airport master plan; and
WHEREAS, -the COUNTY constructed the singie—«mway Airport to
specifications for a maximum gross aircraft weight of 607099 70,000
pounds on the runway; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration had concurred in
the elimination of the second runway, deletion of a runway extension
in length and a gross aircraft limitation of 607990 70,000 pounds on
the runway; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has the authority to monitor aircraft
noises; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and each City has the authority to estab-
lish, own, operate and expand an airport; and
WHEREAS, the Airport is situated within the City limits of the
City of Carlsbat- and under Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 the
City of Carlsbad would have to approve any plan to acquire land
within its corporate boundaries to expand or enlarge the Airport;
and
WHEREAS, the existing development of the Airport and its vici-
nity makes it impractical for COUNTY to consider the expansion of
the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the CITIES are desirous of obtaining from COUNTY a
long term and binding commitment that the Airport will not be
expanded without the unanimous consent of the CITIES; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that this agreement is binding upon
future boards and councils, COUNTY and CITIES desire to embody their
-2-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 163 of 207
respective commitments in this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
with the understanding that all parties to this Agreement have the
powers, unless otherwise determined by a court of competent juris-
diction, the exercise of which is contemplated by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, be agreed by the CITIES and the COUNTY that:
1. This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement hereinafter referred to
as "Agreement" is made under the provisions of Article I,
Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500 of
the Government Code of the State of California), and is made
for the express purpose of (a) carrying out the intentions of-
of the COUNTY and the CITIES as expressed in the recitals to
this Agreement; (b) enabling the CITIES and COUNTY to engage in
collective activities to provide for the continued operation of
the Airport and the provision of airport services to the North
San Diego County area; and (c) provide for collective action in
order to minimize the risk of any possible liability of either
of the CITIES or COUNTY for damages caused by noise caused by
aircraft overflights. The purposes of this Agreement shall be
accomplished and the powers shall be exercised in the manner
set forth below.
2. THE COUNTY AGREES IT WILL;
(a) Not apply for a full Airport Operating Certificate without
the unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(b) Not construct a second runway at the Airport without the
unanimous consent of the CITIES.
-3-
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 164 of 207
(c) Not extend the length of the runway at the Airport without
the unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(d) Not increase the maximum gross aircraft weight limitation
of 607069 70,000 pounds at the runway of the Airport
without the unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(e) Operate the Airport in compliance with state or federally
mandated noise standards.
(*) Continue, for a period of one (1) year, to monitor air-
craft noise, including Single Event Noise Exposure Levels
(SENEL), in at-the Airport Referral Area as described in•
the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan/ identify
noise sensitive areas and include them in the Airport's
voluntary .noise abatement program, an * update the pilot
education program for noise abatement procedures.
T§eg-ene-{4-)--yeaff--aRd-^Thereaf ter, the County will monitor
noise only if (a) the COUNTY, in its sole discretion,
determines it to be beneficial; or (b) the CITIES agree to
pay for the cost of monitoring.
3. THE CITIES AGREE THEY INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY WILL:
(a) Not become involved in or interfere with the daily opera-
tions or administration of the Airport and will limit
involvement in administrative policy matters to those
permitted by this Agreement.
(b) Recognize the Airport Influence Area (as shown on the
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan), incorporate it into
each of their general plans, and otherwise comply with the
-4-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 165 of 207
provisions of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670),
Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code
of the State of California, providing for airport land use
commissions.
(c) Recognize that COUNTY-owned industrial park and Fixed Base
Operator facilities on Airport property are not in any way
affected by this Agreement.
(d) Cooperate in insuring that the Airport continues to pro-
vide air transportation and fixed base aviation services
to all citizens of the north county area.
(e) Recognize that this Agreement does not in any was affect
the rights and duties of the COUNTY under any Agreement
with the State of California or the United States Govern-
ment or agencies thereof, or any tenant of the Airport.
4. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS;
(a) Administrators of this Agreement, one for each of the
public agencies participating, are as follows:
County of San Diego - Director
Department of Public Works
5555 Overland Avenue
Building 2
San Diego, CA 92123
City of Carlsb d
City of Oceanside
-5-1February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 166 of 207
City of San Marcos
City of Vista
(b) Notices given by a party to this Agreement to any other
party shall be in writing and addressed to the party's
administrator specified herein.
(c) This Agreement may be amended only upon the prior written
approval of the Board of Supervisors and the city councils
of CITIES.
(d) Execution of this Agreement by the parties may be by
separate copies, and once a copy is executed by each
party, the Agreement shall become binding upon all parties
as if all had executed the same copy.
(e) The terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the successors of each party unless
otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
But so long as a party to this Agreement remains in exis-
tence, its rights and obligations hereunder shall not be
assigned or in any way transferred to another without the
prior written consent of all other parties hereto.
(f) In the event legal action is brought to enforce the terms
of this Agreement, the successful party or parties shall
-6-
7February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 167 of 207
be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and other costs
in amounts to be fixed by the court.
(g) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the COUNTY
shall continue to operate and manage the Airport within
its discretion as it has done heretofore. If any party to
this Agreement believes that any other party is in breach
of this Agreement before taking any steps to institute a
litigation the matter shall be submitted to the admini-
strators of this Agreement who shall attempt to resolve
the problem in the spirit of good faith and cooperation.
If after that process any party to this Agreement remains
convinced that another party is in breach of this Agree-
ment they shall submit their position in writing to the
other party and give the other party a reasonable period
of time to remedy the alleged breach before any litigation
can be instituted.
(h) Some duties and obligations created by this Agreement are
to be jointly exercised by the parties. However, certain
provisions of this Joint Powers Agreement anticipate pri-
mary performance by one of the parties with the role of
the others limited to support and assistance. This Agree-
ment also provides that the undertakings of the parties
are to be performed at different times and that once per-
formed cannot be undone. It is also understood that the
agreement contemplates the performance of many duties
which are special unique and that the value of performance
-7-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 168 of 207
cannot be assessed in terms of money or monetary damages.
In light of the foregoing it is agreed that injunctive
relief is the only appropriate and adequate remedy in the
event of a breach of this Agreement.
(i) Each party shall immediately notify the other of any liti-
gation or claim challenging the validity, legality or
enforceability of any provision of this Agreement.
(j) The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that they
shall be jointly and severally liable for any liability
that may arise where the County wishes to take action
under Section 2 subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this
Agreement but CITIES refuse to consent to such action.
COUNTY agrees to allow contribution by each city of its
share of any such liability limited to the rate of no more
than $10,000 per year until each city's pro rata share is
paid in full.
5. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the
parties hereto.
-8-February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 169 of 207
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agree-
ment to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto
duly authorized,, their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of
the date first written above:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
By
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
By
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
By
CITY OF VISTA
By
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
Porter D. Creraans, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 170 of 207
CIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND SILL
OLU
Oa:a.a.
O§
o
oo
AR« 7^/y- *t?
MTft 10/29/85
DEPT CA
TITLE' PALOMAR AIRPORT
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY\JfyS
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council adopt Resolution No. f£ V *) approving the
Palomar Airport Joint Powers Agreement.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On April 3, 1984 The Council adopted Resolution No. 7558 requesting
San Diego County to enter into a joint powers agreement limiting
expansion at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista have been
negotiating for some time with Supervisor Eckert, and County
officials regarding the agreement. Council Member Lewis thinks
those negotiations have been successfully completed and that the
agreement is ready for adoption by the City Council. All the cities
may not approve it. However, it is the City's intention to submit
it to the Board of Supervisors for their approval so that the
agencies who are satisfied can move ahead.
The agreement provides that the County may not expand Palomar
Airport without the unanimous consent of the cities. The cities are
obligated to recognize the airport influence area as shown on the
comprehensive airport land use plan and incorporated into their
respective general plans.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the County wishes to expand the airport and the cities refuse to
consent and if that results in the County being liable for damages
the City will be jointly and severably liable with the County. The
City would be responsible for its proportionate share of the damages
which could be paid at a rate of no more than $10,000 per year. It
is not possible to predict whether or not this provision will ever
result in any costs to the City.
EXHIBITS
Resolution No. 7558
Resolution No._
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Exhibit 15
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 171 of 207
RESOLUTION NO. 7558
RESOLUTION REQUESTING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
REGARDING Me CLELLAN-P ALOMAR AIRPORT
WHEREAS, there is substantial concern among the citizens of
this City concerning possible expansion of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport by an increase in operations or improvement
in airport facilities which would thereby lead to an
increase in airport noise and greater safety risks to the
detriment of the citizenry; and
WHEREAS, there is substantial confusion as to the intent of
the County of San Diego, the proprietor of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport, regarding possible expansion of the airport
or increases in the level of operations. In particular some
county officials have disclaimed any intent to expand the
r
airport while at the same time the Board of Supervisors on
January 31, 1984 granted approval to Air Resorts, Inc. to
commence scheduled commuter air service using 45 passenger
Convair 440' s.
NOW THEREFORE, be ir resolved that:
1. The City of Carlsbad _ requests the
County of San Diego to enter into a joint powers agreement
pursuant to Government Code section 6500 et seq. with the
City and other affected cities to formally define and limit
1.February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 172 of 207
the level of operations and nature of airport facilities
through a binding agreement enforceable by all parties; and
2. The provisions of such a joint powers agree-
ment and binding agreement should include:
a. Retention of the McClellan-Palomar Airport as
a general aviation facility;
b. Provisions preventing expansion of airport
facilities such as the addition of a second runway,
extension of the existing runway, or upgrading of
airport facilities such as fire rescue facilities,
fencing, parking or land acquisition in order to obtain
a Certificate of Operation from the FAA;
c. Abandonment of the conditional authorization
to begin scheduled commuter air service; and
d. Provisions for a maximum SENEL in any res-
idential area of 78 dBA.
April >
Adopted this 3rd day of/L9o4 by vote of
_5 aye and p no.
^ -//M-*^v^< ^/- •
MAYOR /
2.3February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 173 of 207
1200 ELM AVENUE • 2Sff. • TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 W^J/M (619) 438'55"
C/fy Council Office
Citp of Cartebab
October 30, 1985
Paul Eckert
Fifth District Supervisor
Room 335 County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
Dear Supervisor Eckert:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad at their meeting of
October 29, 1985 unanimously approved the Palomar Airport Joint
Powers Agreement. We would appreciate knowing your timetable
for submitting the agreement to the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors.
Again, let me express our City's appreciation to you for your
help in this pioneer effort in city-county cooperation. I look
forward to hearing from you.
:s
Council Member
rmh
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 174 of 207
RESOLUTION NO.8249
o<m
Z
UJO3
o
COCO
CC
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 j
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CONCERNING
McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT.
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego and the City of
Carlsbad have reached an agreement regarding McClellan-Palomar
Airport expansion,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That certain agreement between the County of San
Diego and the cities of Oceanside, San Marcos and Carlsbad
regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport operations marked Exhibit A
and made a part hereof, is hereby approved.
2. That the City's approval shall be effective even if
the other cities do not choose to participate.
3. That the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on
behalf of the City of Carlsbad.
4. That the City of Carlsbad requests that the Board
of Supervisors approve the agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
29th day of October r 1985 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
MARY H SLER, Mayor
au.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City ClerkFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 175 of 207
LMH:rcl
10/1/85
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITIES OF
CARLSBAD, OCEANSIDE, AND SAN MARCOS
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day
of , 1985, by and between the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
State of California, a political subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the Cities of
CARLSBAD, OCEANSIDE, and SAN MARCOS, all municipal corporations of
the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITIES".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the COUNTY owns an airport in northern San Diego
County known as the McClellan-Palomar Airport (hereinafter referred
to as the "Airport") which was constructed in part with County funds
along with a Federal Aviation Grant. A condition for receiving said
Grant provided that the Airport be utilized for airport purposes;
and
^WHEREAS, the CITIES have a concern that the Airport will be
expanded in a manner which would lead to an increase in Airport
noise; and
WHEREAS, the Airport does not have an incompatible land use as
defined by State Noise Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Airport has been granted a limited Airport Operat-
ing Certificate by the Federal Aviation Administration; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has eliminated the second runway from the
Airport master plan; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has eliminated any extension in length of
the single runway from the Airport master plan; and
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 176 of 207
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration had concurred in
the elimination of the second runway and deletion of a runway
extension in length; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has the authority to monitor aircraft
noises; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and each City has the authority to estab-
lish, own, operate and expand an airport; and
WHEREAS, the Airport is situated within the City limits of the
City of Carlsbad and under Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 the
City of Carlsbad would have to approve any plan to acquire land
within its corporate boundaries to expand or enlarge the Airport;
and
WHEREAS, the existing development of the Airport and its vici-
nity makes it impractical for COUNTY to consider the expansion of
the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the CITIES are desirous of obtaining from COUNTY a
long term and binding commitment that the Airport will not be
expanded without the unanimous consent of the CITIES; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that this agreement is binding upon
future boards and councils, COUNTY and CITIES desire to embody their
respective commitments in this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
with the understanding that all parties to this Agreement have the
powers, unless otherwise determined by a court of competent juris-
diction, the exercise of which is contemplated by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, be agreed by the CITIES and the COUNTY that:
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 177 of 207
This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement hereinafter referred to
as "Agreement" is made under the provisions of Article I,
Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500 of
the Government Code of the State of California), and is made
for the express purpose of (a) carrying out the intentions of
of the COUNTY and the CITIES as expressed in the recitals to
this Agreement; (b) enabling the CITIES and COUNTY to engage in
collective activities to provide for the continued operation of
the Airport and the provision of airport services to the North
San Diego County area; and (c) provide for collective action in
order to minimize the risk of any possible liability of either
of the CITIES or COUNTY for damages caused by noise caused by
aircraft overflights. The purposes of this Agreement shall be
accomplished and the powers shall be exercised in the manner
set forth below,
THE COUNTY AGREES IT WILL;
(a) Not apply for a full Airport Operating Certificate without
the unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(b) Not construct a second runway at the Airport without the
unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(c) Not extend the length of the runway at the Airport without
the unanimous consent of the CITIES.
(d) Not permit the maximum gross aircraft weight to exceed
60,000 pounds without the unanimous consent of the CITIES,
(e) Operate the Airport in compliance with state or
federally mandated noise standards.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 178 of 207
(f) Continue, for a period of one (1) year, to monitor air-
craft noise, including Single Event Noise Exposure Levels
(SENEL), in the Airport Referral Area as described in the
Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, identify
noise sensitive areas and include them in the Airport's
voluntary noise abatement program, and update the pilot
education program for noise abatement procedures.
Thereafter, the County will monitor noise only if (a) the
COUNTY, in its sole discretion, determines it to be bene-
ficial; or (b) the CITIES agree to pay for the cost of
monitoring.
THE CITIES AGREE THEY INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY WILL:
(a) Not become involved in or interfere with the daily opera-
tions or administration of the Airport and will limit
involvement in administrative policy matters to those
permitted by this Agreement.
(b) Recognize the Airport Influence Area (as shown on the
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan), incorporate it into
each of their general plans, and otherwise comply with the
provisions of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670),
Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code
of the State of California, providing for airport land use
commissions.
(c) Recognize that COUNTY-owned industrial park and Fixed Base
Operator facilities on Airport property are not in any way
affected by this Agreement.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 179 of 207
4.
(d) Cooperate in insuring that the Airport continues to pro-
vide air transportation and fixed base aviation services
to all citizens of the north county area.
(e) Recognize that this Agreement does not in any affect the
rights and duties of the COUNTY under any Agreement with
the State of California or the United States Government or
agencies thereof, or any tenant of the Airport.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS;
(a) Administrators of this Agreement, one for?each of the
public agencies participating, are as follows:
County of San Diego Director
Department of Public Works
5555 Overland Avenue
Building 2
San Diego, CA 92123
City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
City of San Marcos
(b) Notices given by a party to this Agreement to any other
party shall be in writing and addressed to, the party's
administrator specified herein.
°lFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 180 of 207
(c) This Agreement may be amended only upon the prior written
approval of the Board of Supervisors and the city councils
of CITIES.
(d) Execution of this Agreement by the parties may be by
separate copies, and once a copy is executed by each
party, the Agreement shall become binding upon all parties
as if all had executed the same copy.
(e) The terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the successors of each party unless
otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
But so long as a party to this Agreement' remains in exis-
tence, its rights and obligations hereunder shall not be
assigned or in any way transferred to another without the
prior written consent of all other parties hereto.
(f) In the event legal action is brought to enforce the terms
of this Agreement, the successful party or parties shall
be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and other costs
in amounts to be fixed by the court.
(g) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the COUNTY
shall continue to operate and manage the Airport within
its discretion as it has done heretofore. If any party to
this Agreement believes that any other party is in breach
of this Agreement before taking any steps to institute a
litigation the matter shall be submitted to the admini-
strators of this Agreement who shall attempt to resolve
the problem in the spirit of good faith and cooperation.
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 181 of 207
If after that process any party to this Agreement remains
convinced that another party is in breach of this Agree-
ment they shall submit their position in writing to the
other party and give the other party a reasonable period
of time to remedy the alleged breach before any litigation
can be instituted.
(h) Some duties and obligations created by this Agreement are
to be jointly exercised by the parties. However, certain
provisions of this Joint Powers Agreement anticipate pri-*
mary performance by one of the parties with the role of
the others limited to support and assistance. This Agree-
ment also provides that the undertakings of the parties
are to be performed at different times and that once per-
formed cannot be undone. It is also understood that the
agreement contemplates the performance of many duties
which are special unique and that the value of performance
cannot be assessed in terms of money or monetary damages.
In light of the foregoing it is agreed that injunctive
relief is the only appropriate and adequate remedy in the
event of a breach of this Agreement.
(i) Each party shall immediately notify the other of any liti-
gation or claim challenging the validity, legality or
enforceability of any provision of this Agreement.
(j) The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that they
shall be jointly and severally liable for any liability
that may arise where the County wishes to take action
HFebruary 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 182 of 207
under Section 2 subsections (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this
Agreement but CITIES refuse to consent to such action.
COUNTY agrees to allow contribution by each city of its
share of any such liability limited to the rate of no more
than $10,000 per year until each city's pro rata share is
paid in full.
5. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the
parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agree-
ment to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto
duly authorized, their official seals to be hereto*affixed, as of
the date first written above:
CITY OP CARLSBAD
By
ATTEST:
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
By
ATTEST:
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
By
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By
KATHRYN A. NELSON, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 183 of 207
Exhibit 16
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 184 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 185 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 186 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 187 of 207
Exhibit 17
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 188 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 189 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 190 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 191 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 192 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 193 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 194 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 195 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 196 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 197 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 198 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 199 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 200 of 207
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 201 of 207
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5776
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
THE USE OF THREE EXISTING PARCELS FOR AIRPORT
PARKING AREAS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OWENS AVENUE, BETWEEN
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE AND YARROW DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: AIRPORT PARKING AREAS
CASE NO.: CUP 172(B)
WHEREAS, County of San Diego, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 29 through 31 of Carlsbad Tract No. CT 81-46 (Unit No.
2), according to Map No. 11288, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on July 16,1985, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibit “A” dated November 3,2004, on file in the Planning
Department AIRPORT PARKING AREAS - CUP 172(B), as provided by the conditions of
approval of CUP 172 and Chapter 2 1.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of November 2004,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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
relating to the CUP amendment; and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 1980, the Planning Commission approved CUP
172, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699. !
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
Exhibit 18
February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 202 of 207
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
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearin the Commission
APPROVES AIRPORT PARKING AREAS - CUP 172(B) based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the proposed parking area is necessary to maintain
current operations at the airport and the Land Use Element calls for the
encouragement of the continued operation of the airport as a general aviation
airport; parking is permitted as a primary and accessory use within the industrial
park; and the parking area would generate less traffic than industrial and
commercial development on the property.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed parking area and associated features can fit within the existing
site.
That all 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, in that the perimeter landscaping will remain and lighting
for pedestrian travel and safety would be provided.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the traffic generated by the proposed parking
areas is less than the traffic volumes anticipated by the Zone 5 Local Facilities
Management Plan for the subject properties, which range from 1,400 to 2,800 ADT.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan 181 based
on the facts set forth in the staff report dated November 3, 2004 including, but not
limited to the following:
The Land Use Element calls for the City to encourage the continued operation of the
airport as a general aviation airport and the proposed parking area is necessary to
accommodate the modifications required at the airport to comply with FAA, TSA
and CalTrans standards;
The proposed parking area will contain adequate vehicular circulation and lighting
for pedestrian safety;
The proposed parking area will not create any obstructions to the flight path and all
illumination will be directed downward to avoid conflicts with aircraft operations;
PC RES0 NO. 5776 -2- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 203 of 207
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
6.
7.
8.
The existing methane extraction and elimination system is accommodated in the
parking lot design and will continue to operate.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that the proposed parking area is not
located within the Flight Activity Zone or Runway Protection Zone. The project is
compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use
compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in
that the proposed parking area is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the
exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this
project.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Conditional Use Permit Amendment.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit Amendment documents, as necessary
to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
PC RES0 NO. 5776 -3- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 204 of 207
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit
Amendment, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of
the site plan of the entire airport property, including the proposed parking area,
reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. No further
grading or building permits within the area covered by CUP 172 shall be issued
until this site plan is submitted to the Planning Department.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits
This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis
to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have
a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If
the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the
Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the
permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is
found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the
public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met.
This project shall comply with all conditions required as part of the approved Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 172) as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of PIP 04-07 by the Planning Director
and is subject to all conditions contained in the approval letter for that other approvals
incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 5776 -4- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 205 of 207
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
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prior to the issuance of the building or grading permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifjmg all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit by Resolution
No. 5776 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as
well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction.
The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
This Conditional Use Permit Amendment is approved subject to the condition that
the parking is the only use permitted on Lots 29 - 31. No other uses listed in Table
1, dated September 24, 1980 and attached to Planning Commission Resolution No.
1699, are allowed.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days fiom date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feeslexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PC RES0 NO. 5776 -5- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 206 of 207
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
1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of November 2004 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5776 -6- February 20, 2018 Item #3 Page 207 of 207
Exhibit 19
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Thorley,
Jason Haber
Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:05 PM
Graham Thorley
Manager Internet Email; Council Archive; City Clerk
RE: Need to Enforce Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP 172
Thank you for your email. You've touched on several important issues concerning the county's McClellan-Palomar
Airport master plan update.
The city currently has a team of staff working with legal advisors specializing in airport projects to analyze the proposed
master plan and draft environmental impact report, and to develop a comment letter. We will be discussing the county's
plan and environmental documents, as well as the city's role in the review process, at the February 20, 2018, City
Council meeting. The draft comment letter will be presented for City Council review at their meeting on March 13, 2018.
Both meetings will begin at 6pm at Carlsbad City Hall -1200 Carlsbad Village Drive.
We anticipate that many of the issues you've identified will be addressed at the public meetings referenced above, and
there will be opportunities for the City Council to receive public comment at both. Additionally, the city has addressed a
variety of questions concerning the airport master plan (including several of those raised in your email) on the city's
website at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/residents/airportmasterplan.asp.
Should you have further questions after reviewing the Q&A discussion, I encourage you to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Assistant to the City Manager
(Cityof
Carlsbad
760-434-2958 I Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
From: Graham Thorley
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2:44 PM
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; M ark Packard
<Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Michael Schumacher
<michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Celia Brewer
<Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@c::arlsbadca.gov>; Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Need to Enforce Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP 172
1
Please find attached information I feel will help you understand how the County and its new McClellan-
Palomar Airport and PEIR documentation is only presenting half the truth. In the words of Benjamin
Franklin "Half a truth is often a great lie."
I am sure after reading the attach document, you will agree Carlsbad has to do its due diligence and protect its
citizens by enforcing Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP 172. It may be as the City stated on its website, neither
the Ordinance nor CUP has been tested in the courts, but for more than 30 years the County has honored and
complied with both documents requirements. Additionally, from 1980 through 1996, both documents have
been defined further and more specifically in the form of city resolutions and in the press on what the County
can and cannot do.
From my understanding, the County never objected to the additional definition and clarification of CUP or the
Ordinance. In fact, it continued to submit request to amend CUP 172.
Thank you,
Graham R. Thorley
SaveCarlsbad.com
2
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mrs. Thorley,
Jason Haber
Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:49 PM
suzie.thorley
Manager Internet Email; Council Archive; City Clerk
RE : McClellan-Palomar Airport Expansion -Citizens Right to Vote
Thank you for your email. You've touch'ed on seve~al important issues concerning the county's McClellan-Palomar
Airport master plan update.
The city currently has a team of staff working with legal advisors specializing in airport projects to analyze the proposed
master plan and draft environmental impact report, and to develop a comment letter. We will be discussing the county's
plan and environmental documents, as well as the city's role in the review process, at the February 20, 2018, City
Council meeting. The draft comment letter will be presented for City Council review at their meeting on March 13, 2018.
Both meetings will begin at 6pm at Carlsbad City Hall -1200 Carlsbad Village Drive.
Additionally, the city has addressed a variety of questions concerning the airport master plan (including several of those
raised in your email) on the city's website at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/residents/airportmasterplan.asp.
Should you have further questions after reviewing the Q&A discussion, I encourage you to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Assistant to the City Manager
(City of
Carlsbad
760-434-2958 I Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.ca rlsbadca.gov
Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
From: Suzie Thorley
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 1:06 PM
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Mark Packard
<Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Michael Schumacher
<michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet E~ail <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Celia Brewer
<Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: McClellan-Palomar Airport Expansion -Citizens Right to Vote
1
February 9, 2018
To: Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Manager, Carlsbad Attorney and Carlsbad Clerk
The County of San Diego is proposing a new expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) and I
am going to share my perspective and hope that you will allow the Carlsbad citizens the right to vote
on this Master Plan (Municipal Code 21.53.015 and CUP 172).
' Most of the citizens are concerned about the noise from aircraft flying over their homes and schools;
however, this issue is much larger than just noise, it is also pollution, fumes, vibrations and safety
which impact enjoyment of properties in Carlsbad and surrounding the airport, not to mention the
increase in auto traffic.
From my research and speaking with County and Airport Managers, they are ONLY property
managers; they can do nothing about the noise from aircraft. The FAA will not grant any restrictions
(quiet hours) to an airport that does not already have them. CRQ is and will remain open 24 hours.
FAA controls flights, pilots are allowed to approach and land when 'safe' to do so. Pilots are issued
warnings, with no penalties imposed, regardless of number of violations. Pilots may land and be
'housed' (hangared) at an airport that is not classified to handle them, even when they violate the Fly
Friendly Program.
'Safe' is not the same as an emergency. How do you dispute safety? Is it safer to fly over homes and
not in the suggested flight path? It appears that NO government body can help us, so we are forced
into self-help mode and appeal to you, our elected council to uphold your responsibility to protect its
citizens for our right to protect our community via a VOTE.
CRQ is currently classified as a B-II airport; however, the FAA allows aircraft larger than B-II
classification to land as well as be hangared there. These are private and/or corporate jets. The
County maintained the position that a runway extension is required to allow these jets to fly farther
(China) without stopping to refuel -aircraft that are too large for CRQ as it is currently classified by
the FAA. The County wants to spend taxpayer dollars to lengthen an airport runway to accommodate
private aircraft that are using our airport against FAA classifications.
My research has found that the majority of middle of the night flights is flown by these private
jets. This is the quietest time of the day with virtually no other external noise, when most citizens are
sleeping, often with windows open. These jets are not good neighbors and have no regard for the
community they are flying over and obviously do not abide with the Fly Friendly Program. There are
NO penalties for pilots who do not follow the Fly Friendly Program. Can you imagine what our
roadways would be like if there were no penalties for infractions? And I am certain should this
runway extension happen and the aircraft class be enlarged, even still larger aircraft will come to
CRQ and runway needed to be extended once again, allowing and rewarding bad behavior all at
taxpayer expense, while negatively impacting the quality of life of our community.
There is a study, 1974 New York Public School 98 -Effect of elevated train Noise on Children's
Reading Ability where children were subjected to elevated 89 dB average decibel levels compared to
the normal 59 dB throughout other parts of the schools. This could be compared to flight arrivals and
departures. Within a five mile radius of CRQ, there are 56 schools, 68 parks and open spaces, 19
retirement/senior communities, 28 churches and 9 golf courses. Should this expansion be approved
it will affect our communities for generations to come. It is interesting that those proposing this
project will not be personally affected by this project; they don't live in Carlsbad and most don't work
2
in Carlsbad. Airports all over the country are experiencing greater and greater impact from overhead
aircraft, but Carlsbad has the right to have a vote on this extension. I respectfully request that you
take ownership and vote YES to allow the citizens to vote on this issue.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Thorley
Carlsbad Home Owner since 1978
3
Tammy McMinn
From: Jason Haber
Sent:
To:
Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:03 PM
City Clerk
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
Airport item -2/20?
Jason
From: Gary Barberio
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:47 PM
To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
fyi
From: Tammy McMinn
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 12:37 PM
To: Barbara Engleson <Barbara.Engleson@carlsbadca.gov>; Kevin Crawford <Kevin .Crawford@carlsbadca.gov>; Marisa
Lundstedt <Marisa.Lu ndstedt@carlsbadca.gov>; Gary Barberio <Gary.Barberio@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Sheila Cobian <Sheila .Cobian@carlsbadca.gov>; Morgen Fry <Morgen.Fry@carlsbadca.gov>; Andrea Dykes
<Andrea .Dykes@carlsbadca.gov>; Kira Linberg <Kira .Linberg@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
Good Afternoon Mayor and Council Members,
Below is an email received in the Clerk inbox for your information.
Thank you,
Tammy"'
(city of
Carlsbad
Tamara McMinn
Deputy City Clerk
City of Ca rlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca .gov
1
P: 760-434-2953
F: 760-720-6917
E: tammy.mcminn@carlsbadca.gov
Connect ivith us
Face book I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews I .!:J Consider the environment before printing this e-mail
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Tlus communication with its contenb may cootain confidential and/or legally p,wileged infonn ation. Ir is solely for the use of the intended recipient(sJ.
Unauthorized interception. review. use or di;closure is prohibited and may , iolate applicable la\\ s including the Electronic Communications Pri,acy Act. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and destroy all copies oftl1e conmmnica11011
From: Marcinko, Marie C.
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:15 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
To Who May Concern:
I am writing this letter in regards to the Palomar Airport and the recent change in flight paths for the propeller planes
and CalJet at the Palomar Airport. I live in ca·rlsbad on Paseo Del Norte and ever since August of last year, the noise
from the prop planes as well as the jets has been unbearable. I have lived in the same Carlsbad condo for fourteen years
and have never experie'nced this type of excessive and consistent noise. This occurs every ·day and even during the
"voluntary quiet hours" that the airport suggests for the pilots to follow. I am asking you, as a city council member, to
seriously consider not granting the airport permission to expand the runaway until these issues have been addressed,
discussed and resolved. Below are just a few of the reasons that I am asking for assistance with this issue.
l. I cannot open my doors and windows because the noise from the propeller planes is so frequent and loud that I
cannot carry on phone conversations for my business.
2. Jets and propeller planes do not follow the suggested quiet hours. In addition, flying can begin as early as 6am
and wake my husband and I up during the week as well as on weekends. Because I am in sales, I work late and
do not retire until 1 or 2am.
3. Both the jets and the propeller planes do not follow the suggested flight paths and consistently fly over our
complex when they should not be taking this route.
4. Below is a three hour time frame on Oct 23rd of what I am being subjected to during the day. Almost all flying
directly over our complex.
Plane noise on 10/23/17
I began to document the planes in the afternoon.
12:00pm twin engine
12:02pm twin engine
12:13pm twin engine
12:15pm twin engine
12:17pm twin engine
12:18pm twin engine
12:21pm twin engine
12:27pm twin engine
12:30pm twin engine
12:32pm twin engine
12:35pm twin engine
12:39pm twin engine
2
12:40pm jet
12:45pm twin engine
12:46pm twin engine
12:47pm jet
12:51pm twin engine
12:53pm twin engine
1:08pm twin engine
1:10pm twin engine
1:12pm jet
1:20pm twin engine
As I reach out to the community using social media, I have been made aware that there are many individuals noticing
the significant noise increase in recent months. Furthermore, I have reached out to Jessica Turner at the Palomar
Airport who is the Community Relations Director. Even though she has been very responsive to my questions, there is
very little that she can do change this serious issue.
Therefore, as a long-time resident of Carlsbad, I am asking you not to grant approval to lengthen the runway at this
time. With even more future flights planned, there needs to be a discussion between residents and the airport on how
we can work together and come up with a positive solution for both parties. It is unethical that we as residents are now
being subjected to a 20X-30X increase in plane noise produced by both the propeller planes and CalJet. A restricted
flight path and quiet hours must be implemented as the airport continues to grow. If not, this issue will become even
more of a problem as flights increase, heavier payload planes are utilized and the issue will not just be in my complex,
but will affect every neighborhood that lies in the flight paths.
Thank you,
Marie Marcinko M.S.
Chemical Application Specialist
Fisher Scientific
Thermo Fisher Scientific
300 Industry Drive I Pittsburgh, PA 15275
Mobile: +1 (760) 450-6892
Customer Service: +1 (866) 374-8225 I +1 (800) 766-7000
marie.marcinko@thermofisher.comIwww.fishersci.com
3
· Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For airport item -2/20.
Jason
From: Hope Nelson
Jason Haber
Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:07 PM
City Clerk
FW: McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Public Comment Period
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:51 PM
To: PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov; Leeann.Lardy@sdcounty.ca.gov; Nick.Alex@sdcounty.ca.gov;
Cynthia.Curtis@sdcounty.ca.gov
Cc: Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith
I
Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Matthew Hall
<Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Jason Haber
<Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Public Comment Period
To the attention of Cynthia Curtis, Leeann Lardy and Nick Alex:
I am writing to request an extension of the Public Response Period for the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update and associated documents. My reasoning regarding why this serves the
community is as follows. I think you will find it both logical and perhaps, as I did, astounding.
1. After 4 years of County effort on the project, the County neglected to publish a date certain for the
release of the documents prior to their release. Surely the County knew when these documents would
be released and could have begun the notification process weeks prior. That said, it simply was not
done. It takes time for citizens to become aware, after so many previous delays, that these
documents have finally been released. '
2. Per Nick Alex's presentation of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan at the January 18 PMC
Meeting, the Co.unty, using it's email list, sent out only somewhere around 2,600 emails informing the
public of the Document's release. The McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan outcome will impact
approximately 215,000 people living with1in the Airport's impact area. The County has a fiduciary
responsibility to its community and should be making a stronger effort to communicate with ALL
CITIZENS who may be impacted by the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan.
3. The documents total 3529 pages. That is an extremely large amount of dense, technical data.
Further, technical experts and County staff took 4 years to prepare the docs. Those involved have
specific technical expertise in their fields. The expectation that many lay citizens will get through this
long, dense and highly technical doc in the current 45 day Public Comment Period is completely
unrealistic.
1
4. Current access to the Master Plan docs is onJine only. Copies that~ per Nick, were to be provided
to libraries are not yet available in Carlsbad. I personally checked Fri, 1/19/18, approx. 3pm. I would
suggest the County needs to facilitate the availability of hard copy to many more public locations in
the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Oceanside. We have already lost 4 days from the tightly
formulated schedule. Also, there needs to be a provision for the County to make hard copies
available at County cost for those who reqµest them.
5. The only item regarding submitting comments is this, from
www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/airports/palomar/masterplan.html :
Public Review Comments
E-mail: PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov
Mail: County of San Diego, Department of Public Works
Attn: Cynthia Curtis
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92123
Nowhere is there any information delineating the EIR Process, instructions, or any format within
which to comment. This lack of information is unacceptable is the County is making a real effort to
obtain community response. This needs to be corrected.
The proposed McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan will most likely have more impact on more
people and the future of the San Diego North County than any other singular development in the
area. Because the roll out of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan does not match with the
· impact of Plan, I respectfully request and extension of 100 days from the date the above distribution
and facilitations have been made.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Hope Nelson
C4fa Steering Committee
Carlsbad Citizen
2
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jason Haber
Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:11 PM
City Clerk
FW: Airport & Crime
For airport item -2/20.
Jason
From: "Dee Forsberg, Global Hire"
Date: February 8, 2018 at 8:20:42 AM PST
To: "keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov" <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport & Crime
Reply-To: "Dee Forsberg, Global Hire"
Hello Mr. Blackburn,
I would like to know where you stand on the citizens being able to vote
regarding the airport expansion? Although, some are trying to paint it as
not an expansion, it is an expansion. I've resided in Carlsbad for several
years and in the same area. The noise is getting worse, ·the pollution is
increasing, you can smell fuel as it is dropped and I have real concern
about safety. There have been reported incidents of planes flying at 500
feet above my home!
My second question pertains to crime in the area. As you know, there
have been several garage and car breal{.!.ins and just yesterday, two of my
neighbor's garages were attempted and/or broken into. It is just a matter
of time before someone comes across the individuals who are conducting
these crimes, and I am afraid someone is going to get hurt. What is the
city doing to get it under control?
Thank you for your service.
1
Tammy McMinn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Airport item -2/20.
From: Robert Derderian
Jason Haber
Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:30 PM
City Clerk
FW: Palomar Airport
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:02 AM
To: 'matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov'
Subject: Palomar Airport
/
Mr. Hall,
I am totally disgusted with the way you and the rest of the Carlsbad City officials are handling this Palomar Airport
expansion issue. Would you please look up the definition of 'representative' and make an attempt at actually
'representing' the taxpaying citizens of our wonderful City of Carlsbad instead of catering to a handful of special interest
people like developers, political donors, airline companies, corporate elites and cronies. You and the City Council are not
looking out for the interests of the Carlsbad citizens concerning the negative effects this expansion of the airport will
have on the majority of the residents but rather for the interests of this handful of people and/or possibly even your
own and the City Council's self-serving interests ---recently, you and the City Council made it entirely clear to the
general public that you didn't and don't represent US when WE finally had to force a vote of the people for the 'flower
field shopping center' fiasco and WE voted the exact opposite of your unanimous 'yes' vote! ---I have to say that I am
ashamed that I voted for you at the last election ---Obviously my own mistake which will NEVER happen again, I can
assure you!
Why are you and the City Council ignoring the Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21 Zoning Chapter 21.53.015? It is clear to
me that it states the following: {1) Any expansion of the airport requires a vote of the qualified electors of the City of
Carlsbad and (2) The requirement of this Code shall not be repealed. What seems to be so difficult in understanding and
implementing this requirement? As a taxpayer in Carlsbad since 1981, I believe that I am entitled to and expect to
receive a response to these two questions without the response being a 'canned' response .
Bob Derderian
Carlsbad Resident since 1981
1
New GrP PROPOSED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Goals -Land Use 2-G.11 Provide industrial lands that can accommodate a wide rang~ of pollution-free industrial establishments, including those of relatively high intensity; research and development and related uses set in campus or park-like settings; as well as moderate to low intensity establishments capable of being located adjacent to residential areas with minimal buffering and attenuation measures. 2-G.12 Ensure adequate provision of community-serving facilities such as child daycare facilities, places of worship, educational institutions and schools. 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. All Receive " Agenda Item # 3 For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM / CA ../ CC v Date~ City Manager::::, ATTACHMENT 7 EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Goals, Objectives and Policies [Goal -Industrial] A City which develops an industrial base of light, pollution-free industries of such magnitude as will provide a reasonable tax base and a balance of opportunities for employment of local residents. [Objectives -Industrial] B.1 To provide industrial lands which can accommodate a wide range of industrial uses, including those of relatively high intensity, while minimizing negative impacts to surrounding land uses. B.2 To provide and protect industrial lands for the development of communities of high technology, research and development industries and related uses set in campus or park-like settings. B.3 To provide and protect industrial lands which can accommodate a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses capable of being located adjacent to residential areas with minimal buffering and attenuation measures. [Goal -Community Facilities] A City which provides land for child daycare facilities, places of worship, educational institutions or schools, and other community services facilities. [Goal -Airport] A City which maintains land use compatibility between McClellan-Palomar Airport and surrounding land uses. [Objective -Airport] B.1 To encourage the continued operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport. Page I 4
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Policies -McClellan-Palomar Airport Goals, Objectives and Policies 2-P.3Z.a-Require new development located in the Airport Influence Area [Policy -Airport] (AIA) to comply with applicable land use compatibility provisions of C.1 Require new development located in the Airport Influence Area {AIA) the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to comply with applicable land use compatibility provisions of the (ALUCP) through review and approval of a site development plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan through or other development permit. Unless otherwise approved by City review and approval of a site development plan, planned industrial Council, development proposals must be consistent or permit, or other development permit. Unless otherwise approved by conditionally consistent with applicable land use compatibility City Council, development proposals must be found by the local policies with respect to noise, safety, airspace protection, and decision-making body to be consistent or conditionally consistent overflight notification, as contained in the McClellan-Palomar with applicable land use compatibility policies with respect to noise, ALUCP. Additionally, development proposals must meet Federal safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification, as contained Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements with respect to in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. building height as well as the provision of obstruction lighting Additionally, development proposals must meet FAA requirements when appurtenances are permitted to penetrate the transitional with respect to building height as well as the provision of obstruction surface (a 7:1 slope from the runway primary surface). Consider lighting when appurtenances are permitted to penetrate the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use transitional surface (a 7:1 slope from the runway primary surface). Commission recommendations in the review of development Consider San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission proposals. recommendations in the review of development proposals. 2-P.3~e Coordinate with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [Policy -Airport] C.2 Coordinate with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Commission and the FAA to protect public health, and the Federal Aviation Administration to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly operation of the airport safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly operation of the Airport and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport. exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport. 2-P.3~7 Prohibit approval of any zone chang~, general plan amendment [Objective -Airport] or other legislative action that authorizes t-1-H:>---g-e-eg-r-apl:;ic B.2 To prohibit the expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport unless expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized to do --;::;:: _ '2~ by a majority vote ofthe Carlsbad electorate. (Section approved by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate. (Section 21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.) 21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.) Page I 21
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT Policies -Community Character and Design Goals, Objectives and Policies 2-P.4.?.i Evaluate each discretionary application for development of property [Policies -Overall Land Use Pattern] with regard to the following specific criteria: C.6 Review the architecture of buildings with the focus on ensuring the a. Site design and layout of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the character of and location, to foster harmony with landscape and adjacent each neighborhood. development. C.7 Evaluate each application for development of property with regard to b. Site design and landscaping to provide buffers and screening where the following specific criteria: appropriate, conserve water, and reduce erosion and runoff. 1. Site design quality which may be indicated by.the harmony of the c. Building design that enhances neighborhood quality, and incorporates proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location, with respect to considerations of visual quality from key vantage points, such as major existing neighboring development. transportation corridors and intersections, and scenic vistas. 2. Site design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character d. Site and/or building design features that will reduce greenhouse gas of landscaping and screening. emissions over the life of the project, as outlined in the Climate Action 3. Site design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the Plan. site for efficiency of circulation, or on-site and off-site traffic safety, e. , Provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or pathways privacy, etc. designated in the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. 4. The provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or f. Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of streets, foot or pathways designated in the Open Space and Parks and Recreation bicycle paths, trails, and the greenbelts provided for in the Mobility, Elements. and Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation elements of the 5. Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of foot or bicycle General Plan. paths, equestrian trails, and the greenbelts provided for in the g. Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Circulation, Parks and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Management Plan. General Plan. h. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy 6. Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors. Management Plan. i. Provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate-income 7. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy households. pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors. j. Policies and programs outlined .in Local Coastal Program where 8. The provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate income applicable. households. k. Consistency with applicable provisions of the Airport Land Use 9. Policies and programs outlined in Local Coastal Programs where Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. applicable. Page I 24
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED MOBILITY ELEMENT EXISTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policies -Parking and Demand Management Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs 3-P.3~7 Consider supporting new development and existing businesses [Policy-Alternative Modes of Transportation] with various incentives (such as parking standards modifications) for C.21 Encourage commuter usage of buses, carpools and vanpools implementing TDM programs that minimize the reliance on single-through a combination of employer incentives, public education occupant automotive travel during peak commute hours. programs and construction of safe, convenient and aesthetically pleasing transfer facilities. Policies -Rail and Truck Movement [Policy -Streets and Traffic Control] 3-P.~0 Identify and update truck routes within the city that provide suf-C.2 Establish a network of truck routes throughout the City to provide ficient turning radii and other design attributes to support large for the safe movement of trucks into and out of commercial zones vehicles on those facilities. while reducing conflicts with traffic in residential, school and recreational areas. 3-P.l-941 Coordinate with other agencies and private entities to investigate methods of improving service, implementing a quiet zone, and enhancing connectivity and safety along the rail corridor~ such as through develogment of a grade se12arated rail corridor that includes _ _grade separated street crossings at Grand Avenue, Qculs_bad Villag_~ Drive, Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road, as well as new pedestrian ang bJ.9.'.cle crossings at Chestnut Avenue, Chinquapin Avenue and the Village and Poinsettia COASTER statiqp;; Policies -Air Movement [Policy-Air Transportation] 3-P.4~O Work with the County of San Diego CouHty--and other agencies to Coordinate with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission and ensure continued safe and efficient operation ofthe McClellan: the Federal Aviation Administration to protect public health, safety and Palomar Airport, consistent with the Carlsbad Community Vision welfare by ensuring the orderly operation of the Airport and the and existing city policy. adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport. Page I 52
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT EXISTING NOISE ELEMENT Goals Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs [Goal -General] 5-G.1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise A City which is free from excessive, objectionable, or harmful noise. {Objective -General] problems where feasible, maintaining an acceptable indoor and B.2 To control harmful or undesirable noise. outdoor acoustic environment, and preventing significant degradation [Objective -General] of the acoustic environment. B.3 To protect the hearing and well-being of Carlsbad residents and visitors. {Goal -Land Use] 5-G.2 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environ-A.1 A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise. ment, by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in [Objective -Land Use] land use planning. B.2 To achieve noise impact compatibility between land uses through the land use planning/development review process. {Goal -Land Use] A.2 A City with industrial and commercial land uses which do not produce significantly adverse noise impacts. [Goal -Land Use] A.3. A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that 5-G.3 Guide the location and design of transportation facilities, industrial uses mobile noise sources do not substantially contribute to the noise and other potential noise generators to minimize the effects of noise environment. '· on adjacent land uses. [Goal -Roads] To provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse noise levels. [Goal -Rail] Noise from railroad travel through Carlsbad is not disruptive to adjacent land uses and activities. 5-G.4 Ensure long-term compatibility between the airport and surrounding {Goal -Airport] land use. A City that achieves long-term compatibility between the airport and surrounding land use. 5-G.S Foster healthy and productive work environments that do not cause [Goal -Employment] hearing damage or other adverse noise related health impacts to A City with healthy and productive work environments that do not cause hearing damage or other adverse noise related health impacts to workers in workers in Carlsbad. the City of Carlsbad. Page I 74
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT EXISTING NOISE ELEMENT Policies -Land Use and Noise Compatibility Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs [Policy-Land Use] C.8 Recognize that mitigation of existing or future noise impacts from Circulation Element roadways, AT&SF railroad or McClellan-Palomar 5-P.7 Mitigation Cost. The City of Carlsbad shall not fund mitigation of Airport for existing or future development within the City, shall not existing or future noise impacts from streets, railroad, airport or any be funded by the City. However, the City shall assist applicants with other source for existing or future private development within the the processing of necessary permits for mitigating noise on private property, which permits may include right-of-way permits, city. encroachment permits, retaining wall permits and zoning variances. The City shall also assist property owners in the establishment of assessment districts, to fund noise mitigation improvements, in accordance with established City policies and procedures. 5-P.8 Noise Guidelines Manual. Update the Noise Guidelines Manual to ensure consistency with General Plan standards and policies, and contemporary practices. Policies -Motor Vehicle/Roadway Noise 5-P.9 Continue to enforce the California Motor Vehicle Code as it applies [Policy-Land Use] to excessive noise. The Carlsbad Police Department should continue C.4 Continue to enforce the State Motor Vehicle Code as it applies to to reduce the number of excessively noisy vehicles on city streets excessive noise. The Carlsbad Police Department should continue and deter persons from operating their motor vehicles in a noisy to reduce the number of excessively noisy vehicles on city streets. The Department should also continue to deter persons from manner. operating their motor vehicles in a noisy manner. S-P.10 Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give [Policy-Circulation Roads] special consideration to noise sensitive areas; to the greatest extent C.2 Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give possible, the design of roads should minimize roadway noise to special consideration to those road corridors in scenic or noise IE:v1c:ls_c1i::cfpt;ci_bJe JQ surr()~1qgi1Jg c1.r.ea.s. sensitive areas. S-P.11 Review traffic flow systems and, wherever possible, synchronize [Policy-Circulation Roads] signalization and/or implement other traffic flow improvements to C.3 Review traffic flow systems and synchronize signalization, wherever avoid traffic stops and starts, and adjust traffic flow to achieve noise possible to avoid traffic stops and starts, which produce excessive levels acceptable to surrounding areas. noise, and to adjust traffic flow to achieve noise levels acceptable to surrounding areas. Page I 79
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED NOISE ELEMENT EXISTING NOISE ELEMENT Policies -Airport Noise Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs [Policy-Airport] C.1 Encourage the development of compatible land uses and restrict incompatible land uses surrounding airport facilities. [Policy -Airport] 5-P.12 Use the noise policies in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use C.5 Discourage the development of residential projects with exterior noise Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to determine acceptability of a land use levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL as caused by airport/aircraft within the airport's influence area (AIA) as depicted in the ALUCP. operations. The City recognizes that noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL, as Additional disclosure actions for new development in the AIA, such as caused by aircraft operations, are generally incompatible with avigation easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc., are developments of residential uses and such developments should not be required of developers/sellers of noise impacted residential units. permitted within the 65 dBA CNEL Airport Noise Contour (See Map 3: Compatibility Policy Map: Noise). However, if residential projects are approved, the City will require avigation easements to be placed over lots within new residential development projects located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as mapped on Map 3: Compatibility Policy Map: Noise. 5-P.14 Recognize that procedures for the abatement of aircraft noise have {Policy -Airport] been identified in the Fly Friendly Program for McClellan-Palomar C.3 Recognize that procedures for the abatement of aircraft noise have Airport. The city expects the widespread dissemination of, and pilot been identified in the Fly Friendly Program for McClellan-Palomar adherence to, the adopted procedures. Airport. The City expects the widespread dissemination of, and pilot adherence to, the adopted procedures. 5-P.15 Expect the airport to control noise (to the extent of its limited [Policy -Airport] authoritY.__g1·anted bl£ the Feder,11 Aviation Administration to indirecthl t~ulate aircraft noise through airpoi"t design and scheduling} while the C.4 Expect the airport to control noise while the City shall control land-use city shall control land-use thus sharing responsibility for achieving and thus sharing responsibility for achieving and maintaining long-term maintaining long-term noise/land-use compatibility in the vicinity of noise/land-use compatibility in the vicinity of McClellan-Palomar McClellan-Palomar Airport. Airport. 5-P.16 Require new nonresidential development to comply with the noise {Policy -Airport] compatibility criteria in the ALUCP. Require dedication of avigation C.6 New nonresidential development should comply with the noise easements for new developments designated as conditionally com-compatibility criteria in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use patible for noise in the ALUCP, and which are located within the 65 dB Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The City will require dedication of CNEL noise contour as mapped on Figure 5-4: Airport Noise Com-avigation easements for new developments designated as conditionally patibility Policy Map. compatible for noise in the ALUCP, and which are located within the 65 Pag~ I 80
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT Goals Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs [Goal-Geology and Seismic Safety] A City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from potential geologic and seismic disasters. 6-G.1 Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from [Goal -Flood Hazards] fire, flood, hazardous material release, or seismic disasters. A City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from the occurrence of floods. [Goal -Hazardous Materials] A City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from hazardous materials disaster occurrence. 6-G.2 Minimize safety hazards related to aircraft operations in areas [Goal -Airport Hazards] around the McClellan-Palomar Airport. A City which minimizes noise and safety hazards within areas around the airport. [Goal -Fire and Emergency Medical Services] A.1 A City which minimizes the injury, the loss of life and damage to property resulting from fire hazards. 6-G.3 Maintain safety services that are responsive to citizens' needs to [Goal -Disaster Preparedness] ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in A City which provides for emergency response during and after the community. catastrophic events. [Goal -Crime Hazards] A City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from crime. 6-G.4 IVlinimize safety hazards related to emergency service, automobile, bicvde ang_~destrian access across the railroad. Page I 83
ATTACHMENT 7 PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT Policies -Geology and Seismicity Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs [Policy-Geology and Seismic Safety] . C.12 Require installation of appropriate siltation and erosion control 6-P.17 Continue to regulate development, including remodeling or struc-measures on proposed building and development sites wherever tural rehabilitation, to ensure adequate mitigation of safety hazards there is a potential for soil erosion. on sites having a history or threat of seismic dangers, erosion, sub-[Policy-Geology and Eeismic Safety] sidence, or flooding. C.17 Design all structures in accordance with the seismic design standards of the Uniform Building Code and State building requirements. Policies -Airport Hazards 6-P.18 Ensure that development in the McClellan-Palomar Airport [Policy -Airport Hazards] C.3 Review development proposals in the Airport Influence Area to Influence Area is consistent with the land use compatibility policies ensure consistency with applicable land use compatibility policies contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. See also policies in the Land Use and Community Design Element related Plan and to ensure that design features are incorporated into proposed site plans which specifically address aircraft crash and to McClellan-Palomar Airport. noise hazards. Policies -Railroad Hazards 6~.~0.19 Coordinate with other agencies and Qrivate entities to investigate methods of improvj.!Jfl, service safety along_f![LQ_across the rail corridor; such as through develo12ment of a grade se12arated rail c:orridor that includes grade se12arated street crossings at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road, as well as new 12edestrian and bicycle crossings at Chestnut Avenue, the Village and Poinsettia COASTER stations, and other _appropriate locations. S~1:Lg[sgp9Ji<;Jf2.Jn the IVIQb@ygru;JJYg[sf;'_fllfm?.nJsce/qtg_cl,to. thf:!. rg[.lr.gJJ.r:1., Page I 87
Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
November 3, 2004
PLANNING-COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
November 3, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Page 1 ~
All Receive -Agenda Item # .3_
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM v CA v CC v
Date ~City Manager v
Planning Commission Chairperson Whitton called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Segall led the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall ·
Staff Present: Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Michele M~sterson, Management Analyst
Van Lynch, Senior Planner
Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Mike Grim, Senior Planner
Greg Fisher,•Assistant Planner
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer -Development Services
John Maashoff, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Dominguez stated that the minutes from the previous meeting incorrectly identified him as
the person who made several motions. Commissioner Baker made all the motions that night.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:·,
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of
the Regular Meeting of October 20, 2004 as amended.
7-0
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
Noni;}
Chairperson Whitton directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Comm_ission would be following for that evening's public hearing. -
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director, Don Neu, to
introduce the first item.
2. CT 97-13x1/HDP 97-10x1/PIP 02-02x1/SUP 97-07x1 -CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH -
Request for a one-year extension of time to allow for a Tentative Map, Hillside
Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit and Flood Plain Special Use Permit to be
approved on property generally located north of Palomar Airport Road between El
___ Camino Real and the City's eastern boundary in _Local Facilities Management Zone 16. ______________ _
Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 Page2
3. CT 98-10x2/HDP 98-09x1/PIP 01-01x1 -CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK -
Request for a one-year extension of time for a Tentative Map, Hillside DevelopQ1ent
Permit and a Planned Industrial Permit to be approved on property located north of
Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and Business Park Drive in Local Facilities
Management Zone 18.
Mr. Neu stated that the Final Maps for Items 2 and 3 had been approved by City Council on Tuesday
November 3, 2004 and therefore these agenda items had been withdrawn.
1. .CT 00-20x1/HDP 00-11x1/SUP 00-10x1 -FOX MILLER PROPERTY -Request for a
one-year extension of time for a Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special
Use Permit for the Fox Miller Property located adjacent and west of El Camino Real,
north of Faraday Avenue and south of College Boulevard in Local Facilities Management
Zone 5.
. \
4. CDP 04-18 -OLIVER RESIDENCE -Request for approval of a Coastal Development
Permit to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence within the City's
Coastal Zone located along the west side of Surfside Lane south of Island Way within the
La Costa Downs subdivision (Specific Plan 201) within Local Facilities Management Zone
22.
5. CUP 17(8) -NORTH COAST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP-Request for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment to increase building area on an existing church site
through the installation of two modular classroom buildings at 3254 Eureka Place in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
6. CUP 99-06(8) -PALOMAR AIRPORT SELF-STORAGE -Request for a Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to allow the conversion of 6,181 square feet of existing office to
self-storage use and a 16,420 square foot expansion to an existing self-storage facility,
generally located on the west side of Corte del Abeto, between Palomar Airport Road and
Corte del Nogal, in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
7. CUP 04-20 -BRESSI RANCH RV STORAGE YARD-Request for a determination that
the project is within the scope of the previously certified Bressi Ranch Master Plan Final
Program EIR and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the
purposes of CEQA; and a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
the construction of a common recreational vehicle storage yard within Planning Area 13
of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan on property generally located west of El Fuerte Street
and south of Garden lane Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 17.
· Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are normally heard in a public hearing context,
however, the projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issue~ and Staff recommends
approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission
proceed with a vote as a consent Item, including the errata sheets, if any. If the Commission or someone
from the public wishes to puff an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions. ·
Chairperson Whitton asked if there was anyone who wished to pull Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 or if any of the
Commissioners wished to speak on an Item.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
7-0
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 Page 3'
8. CUP 172{8) -AIRPORT PARKING AREAS -Request for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to allow the use of three existing parcels for airport parking areas on
property generally located on the north side of Owens Avenue between Camino Vida
Roble-and Yarrow Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 8 and stated Senior Planner M[ke Grim would make the staff presentation.
_Chairperson Whitton opened the public. hearing on Item 8.
Mr. Grim stated the project is located just south of McClellan-Palomar Airport, north of Owens Avenue
and Palomar Airport Road, directly across from the Courtyard Marriott. The project is proposing the
addition of three industrial parcels to the Airport Conditional Use Permit. The need is generated by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), and California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) physical and operational standards. The County, which
operates the airport, is planning two phases for the project: the temporary parking on two of the lots, and
then a permanent parking structure at a later time, which will require an administrc;Jtive amendment to the
existing. PIP. The r?striction of uses on this parcel is to parking only and no other airport uses are
allowed. Currently the structure of the airport CUP is such that there is a list of uses and structures
allowed as the airport sees fit, so long as grading and building permits are obtained if needed. The
reason for the flexibility on uses is that there are things that need to change for operations, and so long as
the airport remains -a general aviation and basic transport airport. However, staff did not want to extend
that opportunity for airport uses down to these parcels because it is going to remain zoned for Planned
Industrial uses and General Plan designation for Planned Industrial uses, and staff did not feel that those
uses were consistent with the underlying zoning. In concert with the underlying zoning, staff is requiring a
Planned Industrial Permit for this project, and as stated previously, any further development of this site or
fhe·other sites for parking would require an amendment to that Planned Industrial Permit. Based on all of
the restrictions, staff feels this project is consistent with the underlying zoning, the existing Carlsbad
Airport Centre Specific Plan, the City's General Plan, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport. Mr. Grim concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to
answer any questions.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Dominguez stated there is only one existing facility on the designated property which is a
methane processing facility and inquired how large the facility is. Mr. Grim stated the applicant would be
able to answer any questions regarding the operations of the facility.
Commissioner Montgomery asked what separated this parcel from the rest of the airport authority in order
to allow this. not to ,go to a general vote. He stated that certain improvements in and around the airport
could possibly be within a general vote. Mr. Grim stated there is a section in the Carlsbad Municipal
Code that states "any expansion of the airport property that would require a legislative action to
implement, necessitates the vote of the people." Mr. Grim further stated that with this proposal there is no
legislative action needed to implement it. Parking is an allowed conditional use within the Planned
Industrial area. By restricting the uses on the site to parking only, and requiring a Planned Industrial
Permit, it rem~ins consistent with the zoning, the General Plan, and the Specific Plan and therefore no
legislative actions are needed.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the
applicant wanted to make a presentation.
Peter Drinkwater, Director of San Diego County Airports,· 1960 Joe Crosson, El Cajon, stated that the
methane recovery plant is connected through a piping system to the solid waste landfill. The County did
have Solid Waste personnel from the County review the plans for the parking lot development. They will
suggest landscape and possibly setbacks to the cars traveling around the methane plant. The methane_
plant itself poses no additional risks. The facility will be protected from cars by either bollards ot k-rails
which will be determined during the design ·phase. The County is interested in making the parking lots a
plus to the airport and to the City so they will be landscaped as much as possible so that they are out of
vision. Mr. Drinkwater concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to answer any
questions. ·
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant or of staff.
Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 Page4
Commissioner Baker asked whether the access road from Yarrow Road would be improved. Mr.
Drinkwater stated that part of the design is to have an internal circulator road which would allow people to
travel from a drop-off point at the terminal to the lower level parking lots. He stated the exact
requirements of what is needed to implement that plan have yet to be determined. There are concerns
regarding the slopes of the landfill and exactly how much and what they will be able to be engineered in
to provide a safe access to the areas. He further stated that ideally a one-way entrance to drop people
off at the terminal continue down to the parking areas and then, at some point possibly, take a people
mover back lo the terminal or to the restaurant. Commissioner Baker asked if the shuttle currently picks
people up at the parking area, then travels on Owens Avenue out to Palomar Airport Road and then back
into the airport. Mr. Drinkwater stated that because the internal circulator road is currently dirt, it does not
meet the safety width requirements, and there are some insurance and other concerns. Commissioner
Baker inquired how often the shuttle runs. Mr. Drinkwater stated the free shuttle service is currently being
run by the guard company and they are loaded during the peak load periods in the early morning and
afternoon. This is not planned to be a continuing service. The County is hoping that the ability to get
from the lot to the terminal without the need of the shuttle is addressed in the final design of the project.
Commissioner Baker asked if that would happen when the parking structure is built. Mr. Drinkwater
stated that at this point it is to be determined. It may be through a people mover type system that would
travel the slope even before there is a multi-level parking structure. That plan is looking quite a ways
down the road for the airport at its current capacity and demand. With the status of air service and some
other issues that need to be considered, the county is operating on a short term plan of getting to comply
with FAA and state aeronautics requirements, with the longer range plan, with the parking structure and
other amenities assuming commercial air service remains:
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is any intention to charge for parking on the facility. Mr. Drinkwater
stated that at some point, depending on how the airport develops, the answer is yes, although it depends.
As long as there is surface lot only, the objective would be to keep it free as long as possible; however,
the County is bound by FAA rules and regulations to be self-sustaining. Commissioner Cardosa asked
what the physical size of the methane extraction equipment is. Eric Nelson, the engineer representing
the airport, stated that he did not have the actual dimensions but stated he could come back at a later
date with the information. He showed the Commission an exhibit showing a scale drawing compared to
the size of the lot. ·
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there is constant flare on the methane recovery plant. Mr. Nelson
.~tated that there is; however, you cannot visually see it.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Drinkwater what the product type was for the paving of the
temporary parking lot. Mr. Drinkwater stated Mr. Nelson found a product that would be able to give the
county 18 months of usable life, which also allows for a reasonably prepared base that would have the
minimum amount of rework when the permanent lot is built. Mr. Nelson stated the material is; called
Enviro-tack mixed in with a Class II base. Commissioner Montgomery asked how long the parking lot
would be temporary, and at what point would it become permanent. Mr. Drinkwater stated that the
County's goal is to get the parking lot built as quickly as possible. He stated that the lots should be
completed in about 2 years. Commissioner Montgomery asked if that would include irrigation,
landscaping and lighting. Mr. Drinkwater stated that was correct. Mr. Drinkwater also commented that in
regards to the noise from the generators located in the parking lots, a noise test was done at the Marriott
near the entrance to the parking lot, which came back fine. No complaints have been received since the
hotel opened in 2000.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant and asked if there was
anyone who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed public testimony on the
item.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other questions of staff.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if staff would be able to control the appropriate placement of lighting
and the landscaping. Mr. Grim stated that installation of the lighting and the landscaping would require
plancheck review so staff would be able to ensure it meets City standards. Also, the Carlsbad Airport
Centre Owners Association has expressed an interest in review the project so they will have a scrutinizing
eye on all of this development as well.
Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2004 Page5
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5776 approving
Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 172(8), based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
7-0
Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery and Segall
None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing on Item 8 and thanked staff for their presentation.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the status of the revisions to the Architectural Design
Guidelines. Mr. Neu stated he believes that the item is scheduled for the November City Council
workshop. He will inform the Commission of the date when it is known.
Mr. Neu further stated that the Commission would receive a draft EIR for the Palomar Transfer Station
project, which is scheduled for hearing on December 1st, on Thursday, November 4th. Mr. Neu also
stated the Commission received the presentation materials from the Housing Element workshop held last
Thursday. He stated the next meeting for the Housing Element will be held December 9, 2004.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi discussed agenda Item 9. Ms. Mobaldi reviewed the Brown Act
'requirements with the Commission. She stated that in order to have an item placed on the City Council's
workshop agenda, the Council is requiring that there be a majority of the Commission in favor of bringing
an item to the workshop. To ensure there is a majority, there needs to be a vote. In accordance with the
Brown Act, in order to take action on an item, the item needs to be placed on a Planning Commission
agenda. Ms. Mobaldi suggested that if an issue rises to the level at which one of the Commissioners
feels it is important enough to go to Council with it, at the time of the di.scussion or at the end of the
meeting, a motion can be made. If a motion is made and seconded to place the item on the Planning
Commission agenda, it can then be voted on. The item will then be placed on the noticed Planning
Commission agenda, at which time a discussion can be held. It can then be decided if the item needs to
continue on to the City Council's workshop agenda. She stated that there is a placeholder item on the
Council's workshop agenda. It will be protocol that a member of the Commission will be in attendance at
any workshop discussing a Planning Commission item.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of November 3, 2004 was adjourned
·§:~
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
----
. r
(
Minutes of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 24, 1980
7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER was made by Chairman Schick at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
CHAIRMAN SCHICK, COMMISSIONERS LARSON,
LEEDS and JOSE
COMMISSIONER MARCUS
COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS and FRIESTEDT arrived at 7:03 P.M.
Ex-Officio Members Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, and
James Hagaman, Director of Planning, were also present.
Staff members present were Mike Holzmiller, Princioal Planner,
Bill Hofman, Associate Planner, and Richard Allen,-Principal
Civil Engineer, and Charles Grimm, Associate Planner.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Schick.
AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Jose noted that the Carlsbad Journal had Printed
the beginning time of the Commission meeting as 6:00 P:M., rather
than 7:do P.M. and extended apologies for those persons in
the audience who had been waiting.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE
Chairman Schick explained the purview of the Planning Commission
in its capacity as an advisory commission to the City Council
and identified those matters delegated to -bhe Planning Commission
for a final decision. Referencing the overhead projector
displaying the outline, Chairman Schick explained the procedure
observed by the Commission during public hearing items •
Page 1
,,-.
--
-CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. V-309. RUNZO -Request for a Variance to eliminate the re-
quired 10' rear yard setback in order to allow construction of
a storage building on the rear property line on property located
on the south side of Elm Avenue, between Washington Street and
Carlsbad Boulevard, in the C-2 zone.
Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter, referencing
the two prior continuances and summarizing the background with
regard to citizen opposition. Mr. Holzmiller indicated in addition
to objections expressed at the two prior hearings, a letter from
Edwin Trent opposing the Variance had been received and distributed
to the Commission.
Bill Hofman reviewed the staff report and,. with the aid of wall
exhibits, explained the location of the project site and described
the proposed building in relation to the abutting residential and
commercial zones. Mr. Hofman additionally utilized a graph
illustrating the elevations of bhe existing apartment building
and garage and compared the same to the elevation of the proposed
building.
Public Testimony
For the record, Commissioner Rombotis expressed a potential
conflict of interest, and declined to participate in the pro-
ceedings. ·
Chairman Schick extended the invitation to speak at 7:10 P.M.
The Commission recognized Jim Runzo, 355 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
who expressed his willingness to respond to any questions.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Larson, Mr. Runzo
indicated the graphics presented by staff accurately depicted
the respective elevations and distances between the existing
and proposed structures.
In response to inquiry by Commissioner Jose, Mr. Runzo concurred
that the alignment of the apartment building and existing garage
were not contiguous; therefore, the elevation of the proposed
building would not obstruct the view from the apartments, there
being only one apartment from which the proposed building caild
be viewed from the apartment house.
The Commission then recognized Patricia Joyce, 1754 E. Eldorado,
Fallbrook, CA, who indicated she owned the apartment with the
window which would overlook the proposed building. Mrs. Joyce
added to her previously-expressed concerns the opinion that if
the Variance were granted, it would set a precedent and provide
the potential for surrounding property owners to also construct
two-story buildings which would result in blocked views for the
north side of the apartment building. Mrs. Joyce indicated she
was not as concerned for the view from her apartment as she was
that eventually the entire building would be blocked.
P 2 age ..
As a point of information, Bill Hofman offered that the Variance
for the proposed building is required because a portion of Mr.
Runzo's lot abuts the R-3 zone. Therefore, if Mr. Runzo reduced
the size or altered the design of his building, he could construct
the same without a Variance. If there were two R-3 ·properties
abutting each other, rather than an R-3 and a C-2, as is the
case here, an accessory structure such as Mr. Runzo is proposing
could be constructed, also without a Variance. Mr. Hofman
further indicated this set of circumstances contributed to the
exceptional circumstances finding necessary to approve a Variance.
The Commission then recognized Bea Nelson, Post Office Box 1121,
the property manager for the Monterey Homeowners' Association.
Mrs. Nelson expressed the opinion that the fact that people were
living in the adjacent condominiums was being overlooked. Mrs.
Nelson requested Commission consideration of the effects of
a building in such close proximity upon those persons. Mrs.
Nelson expressed confusion as to the need for the proposed building
and what the applicant proposed to store. Mrs. Nelson then
reiterated the concerns expressed by Mrs. Joyce regarding the
precedent setting effects of granting this Variance and the
anticipated deterioration of surrounding residential property.
Rebuttal
The Commission again recognized Mr. Runzo who responded
that the proposed building would be used to store non-deteriorating
material such as boxes, paper goods, store fixtures, displays,
etc. Mr. Runzo acknowledged that the candy store was small,
but for that reason could not accommodate the sundry materials
necessa~y for the business operations. Mr. Runzo indicated no
candy storage in the additional building was considered.
In response to inquiries and comments relative to shifting the
proposed building, Mr. Runzo indicated the building in the desired
size required the location on the lot as designed in his
application. The building could not be located on the parking
lot in that it would reduce the required parking space.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed
at 7:28 P.M.
As a point of information to ,supplement the staff report, Mike
Holzmiller referenced earlier Commission review of possibly applying
a condition to the Variance, if granted, that the building be
accessory only. Mr. Holzmiller indicated the Commission may desire
to consider this condition again at this time.
Chairman Schick then requested staff to again explain what kind
of a building the applicant would be permitted to construct,
without the requirement for a Variance.
Mr. Holzmiller referenced exhibits depicting the configuration of
the applicant's property abutting the R-3 zoned property at the
southwest corner and indicated that the portion of the building
along the south boundary of the applicant's property which abuted
C-2 property could be constructed on the property line, without
Page 3
a Variance. Therefore, the applicant could build a nL"
shaped building, .observing the 10' setback for that portion of the
building which abuted the R-3 property at the southwest corner.
Mr. Holzmiller indicated existing City ordinances would allow
the applicant to construct the major portion of his building
on the property line. Additionally, if the lOt setback along
the entire south boundary were observed, it would not increase
the view from the apartment buildings.
Commissioner Larson expressed concern that the ordinance require-
ments for separation between commercial and residential properties
be observed. Mr. Larson acknowledged the applicant's need for
storage space, but indicated he could not base his support of
the Variance on the applicant•s intended use as a storage
building. A C-2 building having the potential for other commercial
uses in the future would also have the potential to be detrimental
to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the
vicinity.
Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion the applicant
was exercising his rights as a property owner and expressed his
support of granting the Variance.
Based on the finding that the granting of a Variance would be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent
residential property in the vicinity, the Commission adopted the
following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 1687, DENYING A VARIANCE (V-309) TO
ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED 10' SETBACK IN THE REAR YARD
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING AT THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELM AVENUE BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET
AND CARLSBAD BOULEVARD.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
LARSON
LEEDS
SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS AND JOSE
FRIESTEDT
ROMBOTIS
For the record, Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion that
objections of property owners based on concerns that a Variance
would be precedent setting and potentially deleterious were not
valid, in that the applicant and other property owners could
construct two-story buildings, without a Variance.
Commissioner Jose noted for the record that his vote was predicated
on the fact that the applicant could construct the proposed
building, without a Variance, in the manner described by Mike
Holzmiller.
Chairman Schick noted for the record that the applicant could
avail himself of the appeal process.
Page 4
,-.
.r
-
Dan Hentschke indicated the denial of the Variance would not be
final for 10 days. If prior to that time the applicant filed his
request for an appeal, the final decision would then rest with
the City Council.
2. PUD-21/CT 80-36, O'DAY -Request for a 4 lot tentative tract
map and a 4 unit planned unit development located on the south
side of Chestnut Avenue, between Highland Drive and Valley Street
in the R-1 Zone.
Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter explaining
the recommendation for a continuance, as contained in the September
24, 1980 Memorandum, In response to Chairman Schick, Mr. Holzmiller
indicated if the matter were continued, subsequent staff reports
would address the question of alignments.
Chairman Schick noted this matter was a public hearing and
inquired if there were any persons present in the audience who
desired to address the Conunission regarding the matter. There
was no response.
The Commission continued PUD-21/CT 80-36, O'DAY to October 8,
1980.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
JOSE
FRIESTEDT
SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT and
ROMBOTIS
3. CT 80-12, O'GARA -Request for 8 lot single family tentative
subdivision map located on the west side of Valley Street between
Oak Avenue and Basswood Avenue in the R-1 Zone.
Mike Holzmiller presented a background statement of the matter,
indicating, however, that the applicant's design revisions still
did not meet concerns1 specifically with regard to lot depth.
Mr. Holzmiller noted with respect to the subdivision ordinance
requirements, there currently exist no legal procedure to waive
such requirements, or consider a Variance for such requirements.
Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the project, as
submitted.
The staff report was presented by Bill Hofman who, with the aid
of exhibits, explained the location of the property and configuration
of the lots, pointing out the 3 lots at the end of the cul-de-sac
with insufficient rear yard depth. Mr. Hofman noted that if
the applicant were to reduce the size of his project by one lot,
all requirements could be met.
In response to inquiry by Chairman Schick, Mike Holzmiller
explained the applicant could not make any reduction in the
project size due to economic concerns.
Page 5
Public Testimonx
Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 7:46 P.M. and
extended the invitation to speak.
The ColJl1llission recognized the applicant, Joe Sandy, Post
Office Box 590, Carlsbad, who indicated he represented Mr.
O'Gara. Mr. Sandy explain~d that Mr. O'Gara would be providing
a number of public improvements in connection with this
project { 600' of street, extension of sewer and water services
and 600' of storm drains). Therefore, in order to make the
project economically viable, he must develop no less than the
proposed 8 lots. Mr. Sandy acknowledged that the 3 radial lots
did not meet lot depth requirements; however, the radial lots
compensated for reduced rear yards with increased side yards. Mr.
Sandy stated that despite many revisions, no design had been
formulated which met the ordinance requirements.
In response to Commissioner Rombotis, Mr. Sandy indicated he
understood that the project, .basically as it is currently
designed, could meet the requirements for a Planned Unit
Development, which provides for private streets in a reduced
size. The 3 lots around the cul-de-sac then would pick up the
necessary additional depth.
The Commission recognized Dave Petersen, 1531 Basswood,
Carlsbad. Mr. Petersen referenced wall exhibits and demonstrated
the location of his property in relation to the project site.
In this regard he explained there were serious drainage problems
in the area and described the path of the overflow directly onto
his property. The development of this particular project would
further aggrevate the problems he experienced every year. Mr.
Petersen additionally requested clarification as to why he would
be required to furnish more than one half of the street as it
passed by his property, indicating an equal portion of property
from owners on both sides of the street alignment would be more
equitable, obviously.
Richard Allen acknowledged drainage pr~blems indicating this
project would be raised in order to provide for drainage from the
immediate site. However, the only real solution for drainage
concerns in the area bounded by Oak, Highland, Basswood and Valley
Street would be to raise it as each portion eventually develops.
The area is a low land and the only way to get water out of it
is to fill it in.
In response to concerns relative to rights-of-way to extend James
Street, Mr. Allen explained the irregular lot shapes of the
individual parcels through which extension of James is proposed
would mean that if equal portions on both sides were taken, the
road would "zig zag."
P"...age 6
Mr. Allen indicated Mr. Petersen's concerns in this regard had
--been considered; however, the proposed alignment is the most
equitable in view of the circumstances.
_,.--
Chairman Schick and Commissioner Rombotis inquired as to what
effect, if any, the approval or disapproval,' respectively, of
the project would have upon the drai.nage problems.
Richard Allen indicated the project itself would do nothing for
the overall problem, alleviating only the drainage problems for
the site. Conceivably, it could make the problem worse, unle-s
mitigation measures were included to handle the water problems.
Mr. Petersen additionally requested clarification with regard
to the relocation of his septic line necessitated by the installa-
tion of James Drive extension.
Mr. Allen indicated there would be a charge to connect to the
.City sewer system as a result of the public street improvement
and the resulting effect on Mr. Petersen's septic line. In
that the applicant would be required to secure the necessary
rights-of-way to put the public street in, Mr. Allen suggested
that the cost of sewer system connection be considered in the
negotiations with the applicant for the necessary rights-of~way.
During discussion, Mr. Sandy indicated that. development of
this project as a PUD would, as earlier indicated, satisfy the
economic objectives of the applicant. All PUD requirements could
be met by the project as currently designed, with the exception
of the common open space and recreation area requirements. Mr.
Sandy cited portions of the Code in support of his contention.
Bill Hofman responded to Connnission inquiry, indicating that staff
did not share the applicant's interpretation of the Code with regard
to the provisions for useable open spacer and Mr. Hofman cited
additional portions of the Code applicable to the matter.
Subsequent discussion revealed the difficulty in resolving the
matter revolved around the definition of common. Mr. Sandy expressed
the opinion that while there is a minimum requirement in the
provisions of a PUD development for recreation space, there would
be 1,000 to 1,500 square feet of open area for each individual
homer and questioned the intent of the requirements to force
people to recreate together at a connnon area 7 if adequate
recreation space is provided on each lot.
Commission discussion reflected the feeling that the purpose of
the Planned Unit Development ordinance was to provide a vehicle
for imaginative design solutions for "problem propertiesr" and
was necessarily flexible.
Staff responded to Commission discussion indicating that customarily
flexibility was based on trade-offs in terms of amenities provided.
Therefore, an interpretation of the requirements for a Planned
Unit Development or creation of a mechanism to waive such
requirements through a Variance should be accomplished. Other-
Page 7
wise, the project as designed, if designated a Planned Unit
Development without any additional amenities, merely attempted
to circumvent the standard subdivision requirements.
Commission discussion reflected the feeling the projec~ as proposed
did not provide sufficient trade offs as a PUD. However, the
Commission felt the site could be designed as a PUD, having sufficient
amenities, while maintaining 8 lots and felt the project should be
continued to allow for redesign.
Based on the public testimony, staff report and Commission discussion,
the Commission continued CT 80-12, O'GARA to an indefinite date for
the purpose of initiating any necessary procedures to deal with the
issues raised, including addressing the drainage problems.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ROMBOTIS
FRIESTEDT
SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT and
ROMBOTIS
Joe Sandy acknowledged the purpose and intent of the continuance.
RECESS
Commission recessed at 8:17 P.M. and reconvened at 8:27 P.M.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mike Holzmiller indicated the following companion matters would
be presented concurrently:
4. CT 80-33, WORLEY -Request for a nine lot tentative tract map
on the south side of Camino Vida Roble in the Palomar Airport
Industrial Park in the P-M Zone.
5. CT 80-34, WORLEY -Request for a 12 lot tentative tract map
on the south side of Palomar Airport Road in the R-M Zone.
Satements of the matter were presented by Mike Holzmiller, indicating
the applications involved adjoining parcels of land.
The staff report was presented by Bill Hofman who, with the aid of
wall exhibits depicting location of the property, and configuration
of the project, described the relation to the surrounding area. Mr.
Hofman explained staff concerns with access from the project onto
Camino Vida Roble were due to the high volume of traffic there onto
Palomar Airport Road when Camino Vida Roble was fully developed. In
this regard, Mr. Hofman detailed the recommended conditions to
prevent, restrict and limit size of access driveways.
wtth r~gard to equestrian trail and riparian woodlands, Mr. Hofman
referenced the additional recommended condition distributed to ~he
Commission at the meeting, and explained the relationship to
the equestrian trail in connection with CT 73-49.
Page 8
Chairman Schick inquired if in connection with the processing
of these projects staff had considered the element of the use
of reclaimed water from the satellite plant proposed for the
Palomar Airport Business Park.
Mike Holzmiller referenced the September 24, 1980 Memo distributed
to Commission and the inclusion of two additional conditions
recommended by staff to each map~ He further referenced Council
direction to staff to initiate formal standards relating to
wastewater reclamation. While these have not been finalized,
conditions have been included reflecting that if the City does
adopt a policy and standards, the same would be considered in the
project.
Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M. and
extended the invitation to speak.
The Cornrnission recognized Hank Worley, engi'neer and applicant for
the project, 7875 Convoy Court, Suite A-2t San Diego, CA 92111.
Mr. Worley expressed agreement with staff reconunendations.
The Cornrnission then recognized Bernie Gilmore, 6361 Yarrow Drive,
Carlsbad, who indicated he was the development manager for
Palomar Airport Business Park.
In response to Commission inquiry relative to this applicant
participating in the traffic study for Palomar Airport Road
over I-5 which was required of the Pea Soup Andersen project.
Mr. Gilmore expressed the willingness to so participate.
Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Schick closed the
public hearing at 8:44 P.M
Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, including additional conditions recommended and
furnished by the staff, with the applicant to participate in
the referenced traffic study, the Conunission adopted the follow-
ing Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 1697, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A 9
LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 80-33) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE.
RESOLUTION NO. 1700, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A 12
LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (CT 80-34) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, with the
deletion of Condition
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Page 9
JOSE
ROMBOTIS
SCHICK, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT
and ROMBOTIS
. .-
--
6. ZC-216, MALOY, Request for a zone change from R-1-7500 to
R-P on property generally located on the northeast corner of
Madison Street and Arbuckle Place.
The staff report was presented by Mike Holzmiller, who articulated
and discussed the planning issues identified in the September
24, 1980 staff report.
Commissioner Rombotis noted a potential conflict of interest and
declined to participate in these proceedings.
Chairman Schick then opened the public hearing at 8:51 P.M~ and
extended the invitation to speak.
The Commission recognized Roy Maloy, 2967 Carlsbad Boulevard, who
expressed concurrence with staff recommendations.
The Commission recognized Frank Morrow, 2715 Madison Street,
Carlsbad, who inquired what the future held for the two existing
old houses located on the project site.
Mike Holzmiller indicated it was the applicantts intention to con-
vert to office use which would require staff to approve a plan
to bring the property up to all code requirements.
Mr. Maloy responded it was intended that these structures be
immediately upgraded and remodeled •
Mr. Morrow acknowledged satisfaction of his concerns.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed
at 8:54 P.M.
Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 1696, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE (ZC-216)
FROM R-1-7500 TOR-PON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND ARBUCKLE PLACE
MOTION: JOSE
SECOND: LARSON
AYES: JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, SCHICK and FRIESTEDT
ABSTAIN:. ROMBOTIS
The Commission then directed staff to set to public hearing the
consideration of rezoning other lots along Arbuckle Place to R-P.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
Page 10
JOSE
FRIESTEDT
JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, SCHICK and FRIESTEDT
ROMBOTIS
.-
7. ZC-208/CPU-172, PALOMAR AIRPORT -Request for a change of
zone from L-C to Mand for a conditional use permit to allow
the operation of the existing Palomar Airport Facility on the
northwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El camfno
Real.
A statement of the matter was presented by Mike Holzmiller, who
emphasized the point that this application does not apply to
any £uture expansion of the airport facility. In this regard,
Mr. Holzmiller referenced the August 5, 1980 action by the City
Council in adopting the ordinance requiring voter authorization
prior to any airport expansion in the City.
Therefore, any expansion would first require voter approval and
then an amendment to the application.
In response to Commission inquiry relative to Table I, Mr.
Holzmiller clarified that the uses provided in Section II,
subparagraph (b) of Table I would require prior discretionary
review (Planning Commission Determination) to implementation.
Other uses were automatically conferred in the CUP.
Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. and
extended the invitation to speak.
The Commission recognized Phil Safford, Airport Manager,
ID:i.lomar Airport. Mr. Safford expressed concurrence with the
conditions of the permits and indicated he would recommend to
the Board of Supervisors that they accept the same.
As a point of information, Mr. Safford explained that while
this application did not involve any expansion, the airport
owned additional surrounding land which land was not included
in the current application.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was 'Closed
at 9:11 P.M.
Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 1698, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM
L-C TOM (ZC-208) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EL
CAMINO REAL.
RESOLUTION NO. 1699, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING PALOMAR AIRPORT
FACILITY (CUP-172) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
EL CAMINO REAL.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES: .
Page 11
JOSE
ROMBOTIS
SCHICK, JOSE, LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT AND
ROMBOTIS
. -
. r
8. PCD-25, WILSON -Request for a Planning Connnission
Determination for a 15% reduction in required parking for a
previously-approved "joint use" parking facility on the north
side of Grand Avenue, between Roosevelt Street and Madison
Street in the c-2 Zone.
For the record, Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, noted
a potential conflict of interest and declined to participate
in the proceedings.
A statement of the matter was presented by Mike Holzmiller,
who additionally detailed the contents of the September 24,
1980 staff report.
With the aid of wall exhibits, Bill Hofman demonstrated the
location of the building proposed to house the Jazzercise
classes and explained its relation in and to the Wilson/Murphy
retail center (Carlsbad Bazaar and Old World Center). Mr.
Hofman also explained the location of existing parking and
described improvements to parking required in connection
with Mr. Wilson's request.
In response to Commission inquiry, staff explained the method
of computing necessary parking spaces ( 3 to 1) in that the
number of persons in each class, days of classes, types of
existing businesses and when they would be patronized had
been considered •
Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 9:22 P.M. and
extended the invitation to speak~
The Commission recognized Robert Wilson, applicant. Mr.
Wilson explained the Jazzercise program did not reflect an
additional use at the center, since the building to be used
was his former furniture store. Additionally, classes have
been scheduled in a manner so as to provide adequate parking
for the classes, but not disrupt parking facilities for
existing businesses. Mr. Wilson explained he was very con-
cerned that 'the Jazzercise business did not detract from the
quality of the center as far as parking.
In response to Commission inquiry and discussion relative to
the number of persons occupying the subject premises in relation
to the size of the premises, Mr. Wilson explained that only
half of his former furniture store would be leased to the
Jazzercise program. Of that, only a portion would be available
for exercising. The amount of room necessary for each individual
to exercise determined the maximum number of participants in
any class. Therefore, he was assured that parking as proposed
would be sufficient .
Page 12
.-
Mr. Wilson then expressed concern relative to the condition
requiring parking lot improvements. In this regard, he explained
that earlier processing and approvals by the City had required
him to enter into a joint parking agreement. Mr. Wilson stated
the terms of the agreement which the City required him to enter into
with Dr. Murphy provided that in exchange for Mr. Wilson entering
into this Agreement, Dr. Murphy would improve his property by
constructing a parking lot. The reason Dr. Murphy entered into
the agreement .is because without the joint parking facilities,
Dr. Murphy could not meet the required parking spaces to
approve his portion of the Carlsbad Bazaar and Old World Center).
In response to Commissioner Rombotis, Mr. Wilson indicated it
was his understanding that he would not be required to make any
further parking improvements until he proceeded with expansion
of his center. However, he did not consider the change of use
from a furniture store to Jazzercise to be expansion.
The Commission then recognized Don Agatep, Carlsbad. On behalf
of Dr. Murphy, Mr. Agatep indicated support of Mr. Wilsonts
request, stating an agreement had been entered into with Mr.
Wilson, to the extent that both parties would support a joint
parking facility. Mr. Agatep identified the issue as being the
change from the furniture store to the Jazzercise business, a
use ,for which there is no Code definition. Mr. Agatep indicated
Dr. Murphy has every intention of improving_ the parking lot per
the agreement with Mr. Wilson, at such time as the Mayfair
Shopping Center itself is improved to something other than
what it is now.
In conclusion, Mr. Agatep expressed the opinion that the City
should honor the existing agreement and acknowledged the intent
of same as represented here by Mr. Wilson and himself.
The Commission then recognized Harold Clarke, 824 Caminita del
Reposa, Carlsbad, who spoke in favor of Mr. Wilson's request.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was
closed at 9:43 P.M.
Commissioner Rornbotis inquired of staff it they had reviewed.
the Agreement and if they were assured the agreement would
provide the necessary parking.
In response to Co:rnmission discussion, Commissioner Rombotis
expressed the opi~ion that if the terms of the Agreement were
as represented in the public testimony, then the Agreement
should be honored. It is pertinent to the issue.
The Commission directed staff to obtain the Agreement from City
records, review the same, and then deferred this item to the end
of the meeting, pending a response from staff.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Page 13
ROMBOTIS
JOSE
SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS
and JOSE
In accordance with earlier consensus, the Commission exchanged
the order of Items No. 9 under Public Hearings and Item No. 10
under New Information.
NEW INFORMATION:
10. MINOR REVISIONS TO CT 77-8(A)/CP-45 (MOLA}
Mike Holzmiller presented a statement of the matter.
Bill Hofman detailed the contents of the September 24, 1980
staff report explaining the changes at the wall exhibits.
The Commission found that the proposed revisions were minor
in nature and directed staff to make the necessary corrections
to the file.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ROMBOTIS .
LARSON
SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON,
LEEDS, and JOSE
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Completion)
9. GPA-54, HOUSING ELEMENT -NEW HOUSING ELEMENT o~·THE GENERAL
PLAN.
Charles Grimm made the staff presentation on this matter, stating
the changes made, including changes reflecting revised policy
of the City and State, as set forth in the September 24, 1980
Memorandum to the Planning Commission from James Hagaman, Planning
Director, regarding the subject matter.
Additionally, Mr. Grimm referenced a Council Meeting on September
23, 1980 were Council agreed to look at many:·.different kinds of
housing programs for future development to provide low and
moderate income housing. Mr. Grimm explained staff believed it
important to provide measures to ensure that the original purchaser
of low and moderate income housing is required to pass that
opportunity on to any subsequent purchaser.
Mr. Grimm additionally related recent Council action directing
staff to prepare documents to implement rent control, although
no action to est:ablish rent control had been taken. With regard
to rent control and resale progra~s wording in the Housing
Element, same had been discussed by the Housing Element Citizens'
Committee, which had adamantly opposed the inclusion of such
provisions.
In conclusion, Mr. Grimm related that some Master Plans currently
being processed by staff were being considered in terms of
providing low and moderate income housing. In this regard, Mr.
Grimm requested Commission consideration and discussion relative
to including in the Housing Element incentives to developers to
provide low and moderate income housing through allowing the
maximum densities shown in the General Plan to be exceeded for
such purpose.
Page 14
.,--.
--
Page 24 -Commissioner Jose requested clarification of the
intent of Policy IX.
Mr. Grimm explained this referred to legislation prohibiting
discrimination.
Pages 27, 28 and 29 -Commissioner Jose requested clarification
of the definite figure of $50,000 as opposed to the "undetermined
amount."
Margaret Goldstein, consultant retained by the City to
assist in the preparation of the Housing Element, explained the
funds were for tasks which could not be simultaneously performed.
Page 29 -Commissioner Jose took exception to the phrase
indicating Carlsbad was the major industrial center in North
County. He expressed the opinion while Carlsbad may become
that, it is not now.
Staff responded that Carlsbad was referred 'to there as 11a 11
major industrial center, not "the" major.
Page 9 -Chairman Schick requested a change to reflect the
responsibility for ·Item No. 4 be charged to the Planning Department,
rather than the Planning Commission.
Page 20 -Co-missioner Friestedt expressed concern with Policy
V, Action V-9, which incorporated the use of rent regulations
in condo conversions and applied to the entire development
program of apartments. In context, it appears to endorse a
rental control regulation for the entire housing element which
would affect all of the apartments in Carlsbad. In effect, this
places rent controls on future development.
Mr. Grimm responded that that was not the intent and referred
to the September 24, 1980 memo explaining the inclusion in case
Council determined resale programs or rent control were necessary.
Page 21 -In response to concerns expressed by Chainnan Schick,
Mr. Grimm indicated staff would be revising the last
paragraph of VI-4 to reflect that citizens "in exiting mobilehome
parks from" unreasonable rent increases, •.••
Mr. Grinun then elaborated his earlier request for guidance re
bonus, citing as an example, if a site is identified in the La
Costa Master Plan area that is shown as 10 to 20 dwelling units
per acre and we try to get some rental units there, perhaps the
only way to pursuade the developer would be to offer a bonus,
allowing him to exceed to double the maximum shown.
In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Hentschke explained that
the density for a property would be set by the Zone Code when
the Code is amended to comply with the new requirements.
Page 15
In response to lengthy Commission discussion, Mr. Hentschke
suggested that the Commission not address specific wording,
but only agree to the concept.
~r. Grimm added that wording in the Housing Element of the
General Plan providing for this concept would negate the
need to amend the General Plan for each instance when the
City desired to encourage low and moderate income housing
by a development.
Commission discussion reflected reluctance to provide any
increase in density which doubled that shown on the General
Plan.
Chairman Schick opened the public hearing at 10:25 P.M.
The Commission recognized Jim Goff representing La Costa Land
Company, 7682 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. With the aid of
wall exhibits, Mr. Goff explained a hypothetical problem
relating to zoning of property as it would affect the construction
of low and moderate income housing on a particular site.
Staff acknowledged Mr. Goff's concerns, indicating appropriate
language would be included in the Housing Element.
The Commission then recognized Harold Clarke, who hoped low
and moderate income hosuing would be evenly distributed.
Chairman Schick reponded that location of same would be
determined to a large extent on State and Federal regulations
which addressed the needs of the persons who would occupy the
same.
Chairman Schick closed the public hearing at 10:40 P.M.
The Commission adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 1595{A), RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
(GPA-54) ADOPTING A NEW HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, with the
change of: inclusion and approval of the first two
modifications addressed in thestaff report re. condo
conversions and inclusionary zoning1 secondly, approval
of the concept of potential increase in density, but
recommending any figure as to what the increase should
be, and alleviation of the rent control verbate in Policy 5.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
Page 16
FRIESTEDT
ROMBOTIS
CHAIRMAN SCHICK, COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT
LARSON, LEEDS and JOSE
RECESS:
Chairman Schick announced a recess at 10:41 P.M.
The Commission reconvened at 10:49 P.M., with six {6) members
present.
CONSIDERATION OF TRAILED PUBLIC HEARING (Item No. 8)
Mike Holzmiller indicated there was extensive background
information on this matter which was reviewed. City records
do not reflect that a time period has ever been set for the
improvements to the parking lot. The joint use parking agreement
merely grants ~ach party an easement to the parking lot and
does not indicate who-will construct the improvements. Those
details are contained in the private agreement between Dr. Murphy
and Mr. Wilson, which was not required by nor approved by the
City. Mr. Holzmiller expressed the opinion that the provisions
in the private agreement were open to interpretation in that
"improvements shall be commenced promptly upon notice from Wilson
to Murphy that Wilson has obtained building permits for his
expansion and shall proceed and be completed as rapidly as
possible, such period not to exceed 6 months." The question
here being what is meant by "expansion -entire facility or
any expansion whatsoever on the property."
Mr. Holzmiller concluded that the Commission should make a
determination as to whether the improvements should be required
now or deferred. Staff recommended the posting of a bond for
the improvements of the parking lot within a six month period.
He indicated that Mr. Wilson had concurred .in this regard.
Based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein, the Commission adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 1701, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION FORA 15%
REDUCTION OF THE APPROVED "JOINT USE" PARKING
FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE, BETWEEN ROOSEVELT
STREET AND MADISON STREET, with the change to
condition #4 to reflect the posting of an
appropriate bond, #5 to reflect the figure of
90, and a condition providing minimum of 15
minutes between each class.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
LARSON
ROMBOTIS
SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LARSON, LEEDS
and JOSE
For the record, Commissioner Friestedt expressed the opinion
the ratio of 3 to 1 employed by staff in this matter not be
considered a precedent.
Page 11
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Chairman Schick then announced the Request to Speak filed
by Mr. Lambert.
There was no response.
Chairman Schick requested the record to reflect that Mr.
Lambert had been called to speak regarding drainage on
Chestnut Street. however no one came forward.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 13, 1980
Page 2 -Connnissioner Jose indicated notion should be motion.
Page 3 -A meeting was closed where it should not have been,
as it was a continued item.
Page 5 - I believe I used the word increase or intent, rather
than the word shown of "exacerbate"
Page 9 -The Commission voted on Mary Marcus as Chair, following
Chairman Schickts departure
The Minutes of the Meeting of August 13, 1980, were approved
as corrected.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
August 27, 1980
JOSE
SCHICK
SCHICK, ROMBOTIS, FRIESTEDT, LEEDS and JOSE
LARSON
Page 7 -Commissioner Jose indicated there is no motion, second
or vote with regard to Resolution 1682
Page 9 -There is no talley in reference to the same type item
Minutes of the Meeting of August 27, 1980, were approved as
corrected.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
Page 18
JOSE
SCHICK, FRIESTEDT, LARSON and JOSE
ROMBOTIS, LEEDS
September 10, 1980
Page 11 -Commissioner Friestedt requested the record to show
the intent of discussion with Richard Allen relative to the
traffic study should \be reflected as "the study would provide
information necessary to manage traffic problems."
Page 2 -Chairman Schick indicated he did not close the public
hearing on the Runzo matter.
The Minutes of the Meeting of September 10, 1980, were approved
as corrected.
MOTION:
SECOND:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
FRIEST EDT
LEEDS
SCHICK, FRIESTEDT, LARSON and LEEDS
ROMBOTIS, JOSE
Chairman Schick referenced a meeting with a representative of
the Intergovernmental Training Center to address the issues
raised in a League of Women Voters/questionnaire regarding the
attitudes, impressions, suggestions for improvement, etc., of
persons appointed and serving on City Commissions, Boards and
Committees.
Mike Holzmiller referenced the public meeting on October 1,
1980 in honor of resigning Chairman Schick.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES c. HAGAMAN, Secretary
of the Planning Commission
Page 19
February 18, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members
City Manager Kevin Crawford
Assistant City Manager Jason Heber
City Attorney Celia Brewer
Ray & Ellen Bender
1015 Camino del Arroyo Dr.
San Marcos, CA 92078
760-752-1716
benderbocan@aol.com
Re: Comments on Carlsbad City Council February 20, 2018 Special Meeting
Agenda Item 3: County of San Diego's Proposed Master Plan Update and
Draft Environmental Impact Report for McClellan-Palomar Airport
Carlsbad Council Members, City Manager, and Staff
Preliminary Comments:
We returned from a New Zealand trip on Sunday February 16 and have had only a short
time to review Mr. Crawford's 205 page report titled "Presentation on the County of San
Diego's Proposed Master Plan Update and Draft [EIR] for McClellan-Palomar
Airport."
As his report notes, persons interested in McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar)
development will not know the Carlsbad position on such development until the county
makes its February 20, 2018 presentation and the Carlsbad law firm (Kaplan, Kirsch
Rockwell) comments at that meeting on the Carlsbad authority related to the county's
Palomar Master Plan (PMP). As Mr. Crawford also notes, the Council will hold another
meeting on March 13, 2018 "for additional City Council direction and consideration of a
recommended comment letter on the County of San Diego's proposed airport master plan
update and draft [EIR]. "
For the reasons above, we will supplement our comments before the Council's March 13,
2018 meeting as Carlsbad's position becomes clearer. We submit our information to aid
the council in determining what actions the council must take to comply with:
(1) Carlsbad MC § 21.53.015 related to voter approval of county airport
expans10n;
(2) Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 related to county's desire to
expand Palomar and/or convert Palomar from a "general aviation basic
transport" airport;
1
(3) Carlsbad California Government Code and Public Utility Code Obligations
related to processing of the county PMP and PMP Programmatic EIR as related to
Carlsbad's obligation to (a) update its 2015-2035 General Plan and (b) assure
consistency of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) McClellan-Palomar Land Use Compatibility Plan; and
(4) Carlsbad's obligations as a responsible agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to comment on county's Palomar MP
Programmatic EIR.
Various documents in the staffs 205-page report motivated the comments below. Note
that out letter asks a number of questions, which we request that Carlsbad staff and the
Carlsbad legal counsel address in their next staff letters for the scheduled March 13, 2018
Carlsbad city council meeting. Read both sides of the comment pages provided.
Discussion
1. Carlsbad Incompletely Describes the County PMP Project. The Omission
Critically Affects the County's Compliance with Carlsbad Conditional Use
Permit 172
Carlsbad correctly outlines three major physical improvements that county's PMP
describes: installing runway safety features; extending the runway; and, in the long term,
shifting the runway somewhat to the north. However, as county's PMP states, the
county's expressly-stated-goal is to convert Palomar from an FAA-rated B-II airport to an
FAA "modified D-III" Airport. [The higher the letter and numeral ratings, the larger and
faster the aircraft are that will use Palomar.]
In short, county's goal is not to just build $100 million plus in Palomar improvements but
rather to convert Palomar to an airport handling very large aircraft, travelling
internationally', with greatly increased passenger loads. Collectively, the projects
include those Carlsbad notes as well as installing massive retaining walls along the
Palomar Airport west slope and southeast slope along Palomar Airport road; relocating
various airport tenants; and forcing general aviation aircraft off the premises to make
room for larger aircraft.
Recall that Carlsbad CUP 172, Conditionl 1, states:
"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 Commission. "
1 The one and only justification that county gave in its 2013 Palomar Runway Feasibility Study was to
lengthen the Palomar runway so aircraft could operate at 90% loads rather than 60% load so they could
take on more fuel and travel internationally.
2
We are aware from our mid March 2018 discussions with Assistant City Manager Haber,
that a former Carlsbad City Manager expressed the view that CUP 172, Condition 11, is
"defunct. "2 The letter simply said that CUP Table 1 allowed certain commercial uses.
But the letter provided no support for its "defunct" conclusion. The letter author was
apparently unfamiliar with the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS)
breakdown of airport classes. As the current NPIAS report notes, the FAA continues to
classify "basic" transport airports as those handling a very limited number of operations.
As a point of information, Carlsbad's 205-page attachment did not address the CUP 172
Conditional 11 issue.
Request: Provide all the supporting documentation that the above Carlsbad City
Manager letter relied on for its suggestion that CUP 172 Condition 11 is defunct.
Explain what Carlsbad's position is today as to the applicability of CUP 172
Condition 11.
2. No words in Carlsbad MC§ 21.53.015 Limit the Term "Expansion" to mean
Only Geographical Expansion.
At page ----of its report, Carlsbad notes that when the Carlsbad City Council adopted
MC§ 21.53.015, then City Attorney Vince Biondo, in response to a council member
question, said he understood the term "expansion" to mean constructing improvements
outside the then existing Palomar Airport premises.
While Mr. Biondo is entitled to his opinion, he did not draft MC §21.53.015. A citizens'
group circulated an initiative, which qualified for the Carlsbad ballot. Rather than letting
the matter go to a vote, the Carlsbad city council instead adopted the initiative language
verbatim into a predecessor section of the Carlsbad Municipal Code [§21.44.015].3
Hence, Mr. Biondo had no personal knowledge related to the drafting of the language.
Moreover, evidence contradicting Mr. Biondo's opinion includes:
• Carlsbad MC§ 21.04.140.1 defines the term "expansion" in the Carlsbad zoning
code as ""to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including
the physical size of the property, building, parking and other improvements. "4
• The State of California Public Utilities Code, under which the State Division of
Aeronautics acts within Ca!Trans, provides in§ 21664.5:
2 See John W. Coates, "April 23, 2013 letter to California Pacific Airlines.
3 According to the Elections Code, Carlsbad had only two choices when presented with the properly signed
initiative: either schedule the matter for an election vote or adopt it verbatim as part of the Carlsbad
municipal code.
3
"(a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion of an existing
airport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with each requirement
of this article pertaining to permits/or new airports. The department may by regulation
provide for exemptions from the operation of this section pursuant to Section 21661,
except that no exemption shall be made limiting the applicability of subdivision (e) of'
Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including the requirement/or
public hearings in connection therewith.
(b) As used in this section, 'airport expansion' includes any of the following:
(]) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular 150/1500-13, or of any interest in land/or the
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 of
accomplishing or which are related to the purpose of paragraph(]), (2), or (3)."
[Emphasis added.]
• The McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan [Adopted 1/25/10 and
amended 3/4/10, and again 12/1/11 states in§ 2.12 entitled "Review of airport master
plans and development plans" on p. 2-29:
§ 2.12.1 *** "Airport expansion is defined to include the construction of a new
runway, the extension or realignment of an existing runway, and the acquisition
of county protection zones or the acquisition of any interest in land for the
purposes, identified above."
• Moreover, Carlsbad Resolution No. 75585 [Resolution Requesting Joint Powers
Agreement Regarding McClellan-Palomar] requested the County of San Diego to
enter into a joint powers agreement related to Palomar Airport with a provision
stating:
"Provisions preventing expansion of airport facilities such as the
addition of a second runway, extension of the existing runway, or
upgrading of airport facilities such as fire recue facilities, fencing,
parking or land acquisition in order to obtain a Certificate of
Operation from the FAA;"
• Finally, it makes little sense to suggest that citizens who went to the time and
expense of qualifying an "anti expansion" Palomar measure for the ballot -and
who objected to increased airport related noise, traffic, and air pollution -were
agreeable to such impacts if caused by a longer Palomar runway within the
• • . 6 ex1stmg airport.
5 Unanimously adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on April 3, 1984 and page 171 of Carlsbad's staff
report.
6 In the mid oflate 1970s, the county was completing its dumping of nearly 1 million cubic yards of waste
at the three Palomar on-airport landfills. Landfill Unit 3, the largest, sits very near the Palomar runway east
end. Carlsbad residents would have no reason to believe that county, 40 years later, would want to spend
about ten times the normal runway construction cost to extend the Palomar runway over a now closed,
methane-gas emitting landfill.
4
3. California Government Code§ 65402(b) and Public Utility Code§ 21661.6
and Public Utility Code § 21676 --each and independently of each other --
Require the Carlsbad City Council to Take Legislative Acts within the
Meaning of MC § 21.53.015 in Order for County to Implement its Palomar
Master Plan
As Carlsbad City Staff (citing GC § 65402(6) and PUC §21661.6) advised the City
Manager in 19777:
"Greater Control Over the Airport
Government Code Section 65402(b) provides that the County shall not ...
construct or authorize a public building or structure within the corporate limits
of the City [Carlsbad/, if the City has an adopted general plan, until the
location, purpose and extent of such ... building or structure have been
submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction as to
conformity with the adopted general plan. In addition, Public Utilities Code
Section 21661. 6 requires that prior to acquisition of land by the County for the
purpose of expanding or enlarging an existing publicly owned airport, the
County shall submit a plan to the City Council. The plan shall show in detail the
airport-related uses and other uses proposed for the property to be acquired.
Upon approval of the plan, property acquisition may begin. The use of the
property so acquired shall thereafter conform to the approved land, and any
variances from such plan, or changes proposed therein, shall be submitted to the
City Council for approval.
Accordingly, county must under state law submit its Palomar Master Plan to Carlsbad for
review. The Carlsbad municipal code describes the process that Carlsbad must follow
when reviewing Palomar Airport related matters. As provided in MC§ 21.32.010,
entitled "Permitted uses, " such airport related matters follow a CUP process "3" in
accordance with Carlsbad municipal Code Chapter 21.42. MC § 21.42.070 then
describes "Process Three" as requiring action of the Carlsbad Planning Commission and
the city council.
County's PMP proposes (1) more than $100,000,000 of Palomar improvements including
up to an 800-foot runway extension over a 19 acre Unit 3 methane-emitting landfill over
the next 20 years and (2) conversion of the airport from a B-II airport handling smaller,
slower, less fuel-carrying aircraft to a "modified" D-III airport handling larger, faster,
more fuel-laden aircraft, (3) construction of massive retaining walls on the airport west
and southeast borders, and ( 4) dislocation of general aviation aircraft now using the
airport north side for parking. Hence, GC § 65402(6) applies.
County's PMP claims that all needed Palomar improvements will occur only on county's
existing airport property on the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
7 See pp. 1-2 to September 29, 1977 staff memo entitled "Impact of Palomar Airport Annexation" at
Carlsbad staff report pp. 88-89.
5
Road. County's claim can only be true if (1) county's proposed massive retaining walls
do not infringe on third party property including property of the city of Carlsbad between
the current airport plateau slopes and the adjacent property and (2) extending the airport
runway and shifting airport navigational aids will not occur on the airport parcel on the
northeast corner of El Camino Real. 8 On a recent tour of the airport, we were told that
the PMP improvements would require movement of FAA navigational aids on the
northeast airport parcel (which is outside the PMP area).9 In short, PUC§ 21661.6 also
applies (independently of GC § 65402(b )). Hence, Carlsbad has the duty to require
county to describe ( 1) what third party property county will need to construct its retaining
walls and (2) to verify all improvements county's PMP will require (if implemented) on
the airport property on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Road.
In addition, independently of GC § 402(b) and PUC § 21661.6, the Carlsbad council must
take a legislative action in order for county to proceed with its PMP improvements
because Public Utilities§ 2167610 compels Carlsbad to either update its 2015 General
8 We have reviewed the "cross-hatched" drawing that the Carlsbad council referred to when initially
adopting CUP 172. The drawing refers to Palomar airport property only on the northwest comer ofECR
and PAR. Accordingly, any airport improvements, including changes to FAA Palomar Airport
navigational systems, on the northeast comer of ECR and PAR are outside the CUP 172 premises.
9 County's original PMP proposed developing 17 acres on the northeast comer of ECR and PAR in addition
to the improvements Carlsbad described above. County revised its PMP to delete the reference to these 17
acres so that county could claim that all county improvements remained within the existing Palomar
northwest comer footprint.
10 PUC§ 21676 states:
(a) Each local agency whose general plan includes areas covered by an airport land use compatibility plan
shall, by July 1, 1983, submit a copy of its plan or specific plans to the airport land use commission. The
commission shall determine by August 31, 1983, whether the plan or plans are consistent or inconsistent
with the airport land use compatibility plan. If the plan or plans are inconsistent with the airport land use
compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall have another hearing to
reconsider its airport land use compatibility plans. The local agency may propose to overrule the
commission after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the
proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days
prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the
commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division
may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days o.lreceiving the proposed
decision and.findings. if the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit,
the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission
are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments
from the commission and the division in the.final record of any final decision to overrule the commission,
which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
(b) Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning
ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use
commission pursuant to Section 2167 5, the local agency shall.first refer the proposed action to the
commission. fl the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's
plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to
overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes spec[ficfindings that the
proposed action is consistent with the purposes o.f this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days
prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the
commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division
may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of'receiving the proposed
6
Plan or to certify that all improvements county proposes under its PMP will comply with
the Carlsbad General Plan and with the Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
prepared by the Airport Land Use Committee at the San Diego Regional Airport
Authority.
Recall that Carlsbad must address two separate issues when acting on county's 2018 -
2038 PMP. The first issue is: Are county's on-airport improvements consistent with the
Carlsbad 2015 General Plan, and if not, what action will Carlsbad take to assure county
compliance? For instance, since the 1980s, Carlsbad has had a long-running battle with
county because county has refused to comply with the Carlsbad scenic corridor
ordinance. For several thousand feet along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport road, on
both the northwest and northeast comers of ECR and PAR. In the 1980s, the Carlsbad
Director of Planning wrote a long letter to county explaining the county non-compliance
with Carlsbad's scenic corridor requirements and requesting compliance. For thirty
years, Carlsbad has failed to act to require compliance. Not once -after being routinely
ignored by county staff -has Carlsbad taken the issue to the Board of Supervisors. As
the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Simply showing the Board of
Supervisors the ugly airport perimeter "non-landscaping" should be enough to shame the
county into doing something. Yet, Carlsbad is MIA, Missing in Action.
Similarly, though Carlsbad in the 1990s asked some questions about Palomar Airport
landfill water migration and contamination of ground waters, Carlsbad has again been
MIA. As our comments on the county PMP Programmatic EIR will show, county has
long failed to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. And
Carlsbad has said nothing, not even in its comments on the county environmental
decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit,
the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission
are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments
from the commission and the division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the commission,
which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
(c) Each public agency owning any airport within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan
shall, prior to modification of its airport master plan, refer any proposed change to the airport land use
commission. ff the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's
plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The public agency may, after a public hearing, propose to
overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote o.f its governing body (fit makes specific.findings that the
proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days
prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the public agency governing body shall provide the
commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and.findings. The commission and the division
may provide comments to the public agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed
decision and findings. (f the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit,
the public agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission
are advisory to the public agency governing body. The public agency governing body shall include
comments from the commission and the division in the final decision to overrule the commission, which
may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
( d) Each commission determination pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) shall be made within 60 days from
the date of referral of the proposed action. If a commission fails to make the determination within that
period, the proposed action shall be deemed consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan.
7
documents occasionally circulated. How is the Carlsbad council protecting the interests
of Carlsbad residents?
The second issue that county's processing of its 2018-2038 PMP triggers for Carlsbad is:
If Palomar begins handling larger, faster, more fuel-laden aircraft using a relocated
runway, how will these operational changes impact noise and safety in the Carlsbad,
Vista, and other neighborhoods surrounding Palomar Airport? In other words, the
Carlsbad focus now switches to off-airport PMP impacts. This is the concern that Public
Utilities Code§ 21676 focuses on.
One fact is crucial here. It is Carlsbad, not the county, which is responsible for either (1)
assuring that its planning and zoning is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Compatibility Land Use Plan (CLUP) prepared by the SDRAA ALUC or (2) or allowing
development within Carlsbad incompatible with the CLUP (as the Public Utility Code
allows) so long as Carlsbad accepts responsibility for any resulting issues.
It is deceptive for Carlsbad to suggest that county adoption of a twenty year new PMP
that may materially affect development within Carlsbad does not require a Carlsbad
legislative action within the meaning of Carlsbad MC§ 21.53.015 when such county
action triggers a Carlsbad council duty to assure compliance of Carlsbad planning and
zoning with the ALUC CLUP.
REQUEST: So that current and future Carlsbad voters may understand whether
current council members are representing their constituent interests, provide the
following information before the presently scheduled Carlsbad March 13, 2018
council meeting:
• If Carlsbad disagrees with any of the points raised in this Item 3, which
discusses why state law requires the Carlsbad council to take a legislative act
related to county processing its 2018-2038 PMP, provide the Carlsbad
analysis.
• List the number of times since 2006 that the Carlsbad council has acted to
assure that the Carlsbad General Plan was consistent with McClellan-
Palomar Airport operations and development.
• Explain why the council has failed to take county's non-compliance with the
Carlsbad scenic corridor requirements to the Board of Supervisors, which
has resulted in a 30-year eyesore to the council's constituents.11
11 We are aware that the Carlsbad council might claim (1) it can not regulate county -even though county
voluntarily submitted itself to Carlsbad regulation by (a) requesting issuance of Carlsbad Conditional Use
Permit 172 and (b) even thought county, which operates 8 county airports, chose to adopt a County General
Plan applying only to the 6 airports in county unincorporated areas or (2) county can not comply with
Carlsbad scenic corridor requirements because landfill restrictions on the northwest ECR and PAR airport
site limit landscaping measures. Please recall that it was the county that came "begging" to Carlsbad in the
1970s to encourage Carlsbad annexation of the airport because county wanted various Carlsbad municipal
services to be supplied to the airport. Recall also that the Palomar Airport northeast ECR and PAR corner
property has no landfills and yet county has failed to landscape them. Recall also that there are several
attractive landscaping options that county has on the northwest ECR and PAR corner that county could
8
•
4.
Explain why Carlsbad has abandoned any attempt to assure county
compliance with environmental restrictions applying to Palomar Airport.
Recall that Carlsbad planning and environmental staff in 2000 -when
Carlsbad was reviewing whether to acquire Palomar Airport from the
county -prepared an excellent report listing a long string of county non-
compliance with environmental laws including those related to water quality
and air quality. Yet since that time, Carlsbad has again been MIA-missing
in action. That will become clear when our comments on the county 2018-
2038 Programmatic EIR are compared to the Carlsbad comments.12 The
reason for Carlsbad's MIA approach begins with the Carlsbad council, not
the planning and environmental staff, as will be shown in Item 5 below.
The Carlsbad Staff Report for the Carlsbad February 20, 2018 Incompletely
Describes the Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 Requirements
and Fails to Provide Crucial Documents Related to CUP 172.
Stated simply, Carlsbad's staff report for the council February 20, 2018 special meeting
says and/or implies that Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Table 1 lists the
improvements that county may make at Palomar Airport without further Carlsbad review.
What Carlsbad fails to state -which Carlsbad knows because we have previously so
advised the council in writing -are the following facts:
• CUP 172 Table 1 does NOT list a runway extension as a project that county may
undertake without further council review.13
• Carlsbad and county documents for the period 1978 to 2000 show:
o County in 1979/1980 prepared the original draft of CUP 172 Table 1.
That draft expressly listed runway extensions as an allowed improvement.
o Before Carlsbad council adoption of CUP 172, Carlsbad revised Table 1 to
delete runway extensions as an allowed county improvement.
o Carlsbad's deletion of the county-requested runway extension item was
consistent with the then recent citizen initiative, which became MC
21.53.015. Fresh in the council's mind was the community opposition to
any Palomar airport changes, which would increase noise, traffic, or
pollution including a 2nd runway and/or runway extension.
implement, including but not limited to construction of a 12 foot high planter wall watered with a drip
irrigation system. The point is simply this: What Carlsbad residents and other residents in communities
around the airport see is a Carlsbad city council cowed into inaction by the county. Perhaps a more
aggressive city council would succeed in protecting Carlsbad interest, perhaps not. But what Carlsbad
residents do not need is a city council, which does not try.
12 For a preview of the difference, simply compare our very detailed EIR scoping comments on the county
PMP EIR (made last year) with the Carlsbad scoping comments.
13 No doubt county would argue that taxiway changes are allowed and hence runway changes are allowed.
The argument fallacy is this: the runway length, not the taxiway length, limits the airport capacity.
Changing a taxiway configuration may improve safety and avoid on ground collisions. Changing the
taxiway configuration will not determine whether Palomar can or cannot handle FAA-rated B, C, and D
aircraft.
9
o In approximately 1997'4 --when Carlsbad initially told County that county
had to submit its 1997 -2017 Palomar Master Plan (the old county PMP)
to the Carlsbad council for review -Carlsbad exchanged letters with
county airport staff.15 County staff in about 1997 prepared a revised draft
CUP 172 Table 1. Again county expressly included runway extensions as
a CUP preapproved project. In other words, county recognized that the
1979/1980 Carlsbad CUP 172 Table 1 required county to obtain Carlsbad
approval for runway extensions.
In short, county may not extend the Palomar runway without first obtaining Carlsbad
planning commission and council approval for the reasons discussed in Item 3 above. 16
REQUEST: To assure Carlsbad voters that the council is representing the interests
of their constituents, Carlsbad needs to discuss in its staff report for the presently
scheduled March 13, 2018 meeting the issues raised in this Item 4. Carlsbad also
needs to attach the letters between county and Carlsbad discussing the 1979/1980
CUP 172 Table 1 and discussing the 1997 /1998 processing of the last county PMP
and county's 2nd attempt to change CUP 172 Table 1. Carlsbad also needs to attach
all the letters and writings between Carlsbad staff and county staff explaining why
Carlsbad initially required county to present the 1997-2017 PMP to the council and
then allowed the county to withdraw the request.
Recall that one of the issues that Carlsbad staff raised in 1997 when it advised the
council to act on the county 1997-2017 was the term of CUP 172. Carlsbad staff
noted (based on our memory of reviewing Carlsbad documents) that it was city
policy to grant conditional use permits only for five years and that a new permit
should be granted for only five years. It appears that the Carlsbad council failed to
inform the public of these issues. Yet another example of an MIA council.
5. The Carlsbad Staff Report for the Council February 20, 2018 Special
Meeting and Other Carlsbad Records are Filled With Examples of a City
Council Missing in Action When Matters Involving Palomar Airport Arise.
As the council is aware based on the public's reversal of the Caruso mall Carlsbad
development, although the council in the first instance exercises power under the City
Charter and state law, that law accords substantial rights to Carlsbad residents. The
council owes the public two obligations: first, to act transparently and second, to fight for
resident rights when the residents have made clear their concerns -even though
individual council members might prefer a different action. Unfortunately, Carlsbad
14 Since we have had only a few hours to respond to the Carlsbad staff report, which we first saw yesterday
February 19 after our return from New Zealand, we have not had time to refer to specific dates.
15 Inexplicably, as noted in Item 5 below, county withdrew its 1997-2017 PMP from council review and the
council never explained to the public what was happening. Another example of the council being MIA.
16 Note especially that for the reasons stated, the existing CUP 172 does not allow runway extensions.
Accordingly, the Carlsbad City Council would have to amend CUP 172 to allow such a new preapproved
use -especially in light of the history of the council affinnatively striking the county originally requested
CUP 172 Table 1 language.
10
records are replete with examples of the council sidestepping the wishes of its
constituents when Palomar Airport development is concerned. Time does not now permit
a full detailed listing of council "Missing in Action/MIA examples. Here are a few,
starting with the most recent:
•
•
2012 to Present: Council Avoidance of Public Comments at Council Meetings .
As it must, the council accords the public their State-mandated Brown Act rights
to speak at public meetings. In reality, the council treats the public as though they
are "whistling in the wind." Seldom does the council respond to questions the
public asks. Seldom does the council ask city staff to respond to questions asked.
Seldom does council say: "That's a concerning issue. We would like to have staff
respond in detail and report back at the next council meeting." In other words, the
council attitude (apparently dictated by the Mayor) is that the public is to be seen,
heard, and then ignored. The public has received this treatment over the last two
years when raising Palomar Airport issues.
2013 Council Circumvention of Carlsbad Staff and Possibly the Brown Act
Related to Palomar Airport: The April 2013 then-City Manager Coates letter. In
2012, California Pacific Airlines (CPA) asked the FAA to approve new CPA air
carrier service at Palomar Airport. The FAA circulated a CPA NEPA analysis for
comment. In 2012, we commented extensively on the CPA analysis. Carlsbad
staff also commented. But the Carlsbad council was apparently unhappy with
Carlsbad staff comments. If you have seen the movie Fish Called Wanda (highly
recommended), picture the scene in which an English barrister is suspended
upside down from a 2nd story building until he recants his original position.
It appears that then City Manager Coates was "taken to the woodshed" resulting
in his April 23, 2013 letter recanting certain positions that Carlsbad staff took
when commenting on the FAA CPA NEPA analysis. How and when? For sure,
we don't know. But, as the saying goes, be suspicious of coincidences. If my
memory serves correctly, the Carlsbad council in early 2013 (possibly in March
and/or April) scheduled agenda items related to Palomar and/or CPA and went
into closed session to discuss them. Such closed sessions are proper under the
Brown Act -as long as Carlsbad correctly reports what it did. "Coincidentally"
the City Manager sent his recantation a short time thereafter.
Arguably, the then City Manager's April 23, 2013 "secret recantation" was
mistaken. But the public never had a chance to comment on Mr. Coates letter or
the extraordinary measure that Carlsbad took of recanting a written position on a
formal FAA NEPA document. While the closed session in the first instance may
have been appropriate (we really don't know), if the Carlsbad council wanted to
act transparently with the public, it would have scheduled the issue of concern for
a public meeting. "Reading between the lines" of the 2013 letter, the issue seems
to have been what obligations Carlsbad had under CUP 172, Condition 8, to
require county to maintain a "general aviation basic transport" airport at Palomar.
As noted above, this is a major issue of concern as county seeks to convert
11
Palomar from a smaller, slower aircraft B-II airport to a larger, faster aircraft D-
III airport.
• Did the Carlsbad Council Circumvent the voter requirement in MC§ 21.53.015
Between I 990 and 2004? Carlsbad staff advised the council in the 1990s (see
Carlsbad 205 page staff report for February 20 meeting) that county had advised
Carlsbad that county wished to acquire 3 parcels outside the Palomar airport
premises and to relocate airport parking to these premises. Apparently, Carlsbad
staff advised the council that purchasing the property and using them for airport
parking or other purposes would require a council legislative action within the
meaning of MC§ 21.53.015.
But by 2004 -when county asked Carlsbad for a CUP 172B amendment to allow
the airport parking -something magical had happened. Carlsbad and county
conceded that the 3 parcels which county had acquired to relocate airport parking
constituted an airport expansion. But they argued that no council legislative
action was required in 2004 because the parcels were somehow already zoned for
the parking lot uses. See the November 3, 2004 Carlsbad Planning Commission
report.
The interesting question of course is this: What, if any discussions, did Carlsbad
and county have between the initial Carlsbad staff recommendation and the final
staff recommendation and what, if any action, did the Carlsbad council take to
allow parking the 3 parcels county acquired to relocate airport parking.
• The Carlsbad City Council's I 997 Failure to Act Publicly in Accordance with
State Law and the Carlsbad Legal Requirements When County Processed its
I 997-2017 Palomar Master Plan. As noted above, Carlsbad documents reflect
that Carlsbad staff advised the county in about 1996/1997 that county had to
process its 1997 -2017 Palomar Master Plan to the Carlsbad city council. The
process apparently proceeded as far as preparing notices to a list of property
owners within a certain distance of the airport. Then, apparently, the county
withdrew its application and the council never scheduled the item for council and
public review. Again, the council was MIA.
The above council inaction was beyond non transparent. The council failed to
inform the public of major issues involving the most environmentally impactful
business in the city of Carlsbad. Perhaps the council had some legal concerns.
Fine. The way to handle them is to (1) seek input from the public to assess their
position and (2) if necessary, to file a declaratory relief action against the county
so that a court could determine the respective rights and liabilities of Carlsbad, the
county, and community residents related to Palomar Airport. Instead, the
council's MIA failures have resulted in multiple community members spending
literally thousands of hours to assess their rights under State, county, and Carlsbad
law.
12
• The 1984 "Palomar Airport Joint Powers Agreement (Carlsbad AB 7681-2).
Carlsbad's staff report for the February 20, 2018 meeting refers to Resolution No.
8104 adopted by Carlsbad in 1984, which was intended to create a Joint Powers
Agreement pursuant to the California Government Code among the county,
Carlsbad, and other cities surrounding the airport. (See pp. 158 and following of
Carlsbad's 205 page staff report for the council February 20, 2018 meeting.) That
Resolution provides in part "WHEREAS, the County has eliminated any extension
in length of the single runway from the Airport master plan" and "WHEREAS, the
Federal Aviation Administration had concurred in the elimination of the second
runway, deletion of a runway extension in length and a gross aircraft limitation of
70,000 pounds on the runway."
Despite repeated discussions between Carlsbad council members and members of
the public over the last five years, Carlsbad has maintained the position that a
runway extension is not a CUP 172 airport expansion. Carlsbad has repeatedly
either said or implied that it was never Carlsbad's intent to limit a Palomar
Airport runway extension. Yet the above noted council-adopted resolution
contradicts most of what the city has said for the last five years.
Carlsbad did not provide in its 205-page staff report any information as to
whether county ever executed the above noted Joint Powers Agreement.
REQUEST: So that the public may know whether the Carlsbad council took any
actions to circumvent the requirements of Carlsbad MC § 21.53.015 when
approving CUP 172 B, list and explain all actions that the Carlsbad Planning
Commission and/or City Council took from 1990 to 2004 to allow airport parking as
a planned use on the 3 parcels that were involved in the CUP 172 B Carlsbad action.
REQUEST: So that the public may know whether the Carlsbad council is protecting
the rights of its constituents, provide with the Carlsbad staff report for the presently
scheduled March 13, 2018 meeting all the correspondence among Carlsbad, the
county, and the other cities surrounding Palomar Airport related to the
development, processing, and finalizing of the above-noted Joint Powers Agreement.
[Please also note: The above list is not exhaustive. Other examples exist of the
Carlsbad City Council MIA.]
Conclusion
For the reasons above, it appears that Carlsbad city council members have consistently
over a 33-year period beginning in about 1984 engaged in a course of conduct to conceal
issues related to the development and operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport from the
public and Carlsbad residents. Perhaps council members were motivated by legal
concerns. Perhaps council members were motivated by a desire to make Carlsbad a
tourist mecca. And if Carlsbad residents want to sacrifice Carlsbad livability and
sustainability concerns and accept more traffic, noise, pollution, and other environmental
13
problems, fine. As long as the will of Carlsbad residents, not the will of individual
council members, is being done.
What is abundantly clear is that the council has quite likely wasted hundreds of thousands
of dollars, perhaps millions, by "tip-toeing" around the MC§ 21.53.015, CUP 172, and
related state law issues and by consistently acting in an "engineered, non-transparent
manner."17
Given the upcoming Carlsbad council elections, the council will presumably be more
responsive to community concerns. If not, community members will have to explore
other avenues of relief including but not limited to requesting the San Diego Grand Jury
to look into issues related to Carlsbad review of Palomar Airport development. The
council could begin to show its good faith response to community concerns in the
following ways:
1. Fully producing all the records requested above as part of its March 13, 2018 staff
report;
2. Finding at the March 13, 2018 council meeting that the county's 2018-2038 PMP
stated intent to (a) convert Palomar Airport from a B-II airport to a Modified D-III
airport and (b) extend and relocate its runway constitute a Palomar Airport
expansion within the meaning of MC§ 21.53.015 and CUP 172 and the
McClellan-Palomar Compatibility Land Use Plan and the State Aeronautics Code.
3. Finding at the March 13, 2018 meeting that the various state code provisions cited
above require the Carlsbad council to take various legislative actions within the
meaning of MC§ 21.53.015 because county may not implement its 2018-2038
PMP unless and until the Carlsbad council finds the PMP consistent with the
Carlsbad 2015 General Plan and until the Carlsbad council certifies to the
SDRAA ALUC that Carlsbad's zoning and planning conditions for areas
surrounding the airport-as affected by the county's changed-2018-2038
operations will be consistent with the ALUC McClellan-Palomar Compatibility
Land Use Plan.
4. Finding that the county must present its 2018 PMP to the Carlsbad city Council
for review and determination of the consistency of the PMP recommendations
with the Carlsbad 2015 General Plan.
5. Finding at the March 13, 2018 council meeting that a Palomar runway extension
is not a permitted CUP 172 Table 1 use for the reasons described above and
finding that the county must present its 2018 -2038 PMP to the Carlsbad City
17 Not yet having heard the presentation of county and the Carlsbad legal firm and given time constraints,
we have limited our discussion of issues in this letter. We will comment on the county and Carlsbad
counsel presentation by separate letter before March 13, 2017.
14
6. Instructing staff to begin procedures pursuant to MC§ 21.53.015 to set a special
election for Carlsbad voters to decide if they support the county's new PMP;
7. Instructing staff to prepare a declaratory relief action to resolve legal issues
related to county adoption of its new PMP and PMP projects if county does not by
April 15, 2018 (a) concede that its PMP and PMP projects require it to seek an
amendment to CUP 172 and (b) concede that state law requires county to seek
Carlsbad city council legislative approval so that Carlsbad may determine the
consistency of the PMP with the Carlsbad 2015 GP and with the Palomar
Compatibility Land Use Plan.
8. Instructing Carlsbad staff to comment extensively on the county 2018 -2038
PMP and PMP Programmatic EIR. In other words, Carlsbad comments should
not be "pro forma" given the fact that
(a) The county EIR is the first Palomar EIR prepared in 40 years and Carlsbad has
never provided extensive CEQA comments to county, in part because county until
now has "piecemealed" Palomar projects and refused to prepare EIRs;
(b) Carlsbad, Vista, and other community residents around Palomar have expressed
concerns in 2016 and 2017 about changes in Palomar flight paths and noise;
( c) The Carlsbad 2015 General Plan already recognized that Palomar Airport Road
and El Camino Real in the vicinity of the airport will have significant traffic
congestion, even before Palomar implements its planned ("hoped for") 500,000 plus
additional passengers per year in the future;
( d) The Palomar Airport 3 closed landfills have for 20 years failed to meet the
RWQCB objectives resulting from the landfill contaminants;
( e) The Palomar landfills have had several underground landfill fires in the 2000s,
one burning for more than 6 months, which likely converted some underground waste
to hazardous material, which can leach into the groundwater;
(f) The Palomar landfills have no bottom 3-foot clay liner (now common in landfill
design) to contain the garbage juice leaching through the landfill;
(g) County proposes driving hundreds of piles, each 15 feet to 40 feet in depth,
through the Unit 3 landfill at the runway end to extend the runway;
(h) The Carlsbad 42-page report prepared by Carlsbad staff in 2000 related to
possible acquisition of Palomar described the landfill continuing issues, including
water quality related, which Carlsbad has since failed to monitor;18 and
18 We are aware that Carlsbad staff with substantial justification can say that the state agency charged with
monitoring water quality, the RWQCB, is the expert and annually reviews county landfill reports. So far,
so good. But if Carlsbad staff monitored R WQCB findings, staff would know that in 2016 and 2017 the
15
(i) The county's own consultant (SCS Engineers) in October 2015 prepared an
extensive report summarizing significant Palomar Airport environmental and
safety concerns associated with a large, fuel-laden aircraft (the kind that
county wants to handle when converting to a "modified D-III" airport)
crashing into the Palomar runway east end landfill.
A key issue Carlsbad staff should especially focus on is this: For the next 20 years,
county will no doubt claim (as it has for the last 40 years) that future Palomar projects are
categorically exempt ( or require minimal supplemental analysis) because such projects
were analyzed in the county's 2018-2038 Programmatic EIR.
State law encourages programmatic EIRs. So the county goal is meritorious, as long as
county does in fact (i) fully analyze the impacts of its proposed projects, (ii) provides
sufficient information to determine what baselines and baseline analytic models county
used to assess noise, traffic, air quality, water quality, biological, aesthetic, and other
impacts, and (iii) a future changed environmental setting or change in the law (such as
Greenhouse gas related which the Governor has changed several times in the last 3
years). Our ongoing review of the county PEIR suggests that the county has not
complied with the above requirements. However, we presume that Carlsbad staff are the
environmental experts and can better document in its comments on the county PEIR what
the county does and does not do. In short, the county 2018-2038 PEIR is not the end of
the issues but just the beginning if the PEIR. Hint: When commenting, county staff
needs to identify how specific a programmatic EIR must be. Not an easy question. But
we presume that a good faith Carlsbad response to the county PMP will consider this
issue.
Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to receiving more info from
Carlsbad.19 Please note that we used to live in La Costa Valley until relocating to San
Marcos to assist my mother in law who recently died. We chose not to relocate again to
Robertson Ranch in Carlsbad mainly due to Palomar Airport related noise concerns.
/s/
Ray & Ellen Bender
2018 bender comments on Carlsbad cc Feb 18 mtg
RWQCB noted that Palomar has consistently failed to meet the RWQCB 1996 Order objectives. If the
Carlsbad council were being responsive to community concerns, its direction to staff would be to raise
these issues in the Carlsbad PMP Programmatic EIR comment letter. Carlsbad staff can hardly be
criticized for being "gun-shy" after being second-guessed by the then City Manager's 2013 FAA NEPA
recantation.
19 Yesterday February 19, 2018 I did listen to the voice mail that Assistant City Manager Jason Heber left
last week while we were still in New Zealand. He asked if I had received the information I requested from
staff. Due to time constraints, I have not yet been able to reply to his voice mail but will later this week.
16
Board of Supervisors Meeting Dec 16, 2015, 9am
Agenda item #3 -Options for New Master Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport
http://sdcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=9&clip id=1709
Spoken by Bill Horn
"I think this is a big huge commercial driver here. And I think we're planning an
airport for, if not 50 years maybe 100. Um, so I'm a private pilot, I'm sympathetic
to airplane owners but I think the folks that are tied down on the North side of
the runway need to move to Fallbrook or someplace else. You have a huge
commercial operations going here with a lot of corporate jets coming in and out
of there. This is the driver, this is the impetus for us lengthening the runway and
doing all these safety issues there. It's no longer a little small airport um, that you
can fly in and out of with your Cessna 210 um, so I think that those folks need to
be put on notice that they're going to have to move 'cause you're going to have
to have that space and you're not going to be able to move them to the fixed
space operator space. I mean you're cutting back on their businesses so um, the
purpose of this whole thing was to examine the economic feasibility of expanding
and increasing activity.
I think the concerns of the public as you have these meetings of course, are going
to be noise, but if we expand the runway um, that noise will be a lot less because
that footprint will go way down um, and so, and I know your alternatives here,
you're basically looking at the 800 ft. I would like you to also, because I'm
concerned about if we, I want you to also leave the 900 ft in your study because I
don't want to have to come back and sit down and decide if we got the money
from the Feds to build 900 ft and then all the sudden, we don't, we haven't
studied it so I don't want to have to go through that again. So I realize your
preferred and we're going to probably approve going ahead with your preferred
and but I just want to make sure we haven't eliminated the 900 ft, and a couple of
other issues. I know you guys are nice to the pilots and I appreciate that. I don't
want them down here picketing us but at the same time, as a private pilot, I think
that maybe you ought to move, we ought to move, some of these planes or make
an opportunity for them to move to either Fallbrook or Borrego or I don't know. I
know French Valley is in Riverside County and they would probably like the
aircraft also. I just think the days of a the majority of this activity being
recreational are over um, and so this is a very, very viable commercial operation
so we are planning for the next 50 years, if not 100. So I want us to keep all the
options available.
With that being said, we can go to speakers or staff or whatever. I just don't want
to narrow this down to a focus groups input 'cause I don't know what their
concern is. My concern is the economic viability of this airport and the Northern
Region and very obviously, if you look at Lindberg, you know they're pretty much
at capacity. I know Greg can talk to us about that but uh, I think we have a great
option here and I think we ought to use it. So with that said, having ruined the
whole soup mix you go ahead."
McClellan Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update
February 20, 2018
Peter J. Kirsch
Sarah M. Rockwell
McClellan-Palomar
AIRPORT
MAS T ER P l A N
..........
Ill
2
Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell
−National law firm with focus on airports
and other transportation modes
−Represent airport proprietors, local
governments and community groups
−Expertise in California land use and
CEQA
3
The directive to our firm
−Provide an objective analysis based upon
national experience
−Advise on general powers of local
governments to regulate airports
−Analyze applicability of Section 21.53.015
and local zoning to Master Plan update
−Advise on what City can do to protect City
residents
4
Tonight’s presentation
1.Airport law 101
2.City’s authority over the airport
−Section 21.53.015
−Conditional Use Permit
−Airport Land Use Commission Process
−CEQA
3.City ability to protect Carlsbad residents
5
This presentation will not address:
−Comments on the impacts of the Master
Plan
−Adequacy of Program EIR and
mitigation
6
Airport Law 101
7
Common misunderstandings
Airports are not like other local transportation
facilities
Local governments and voters have very
limited control over airport operations
Normal land use laws do not apply to
airports
Airport owners/proprietors have very
different powers than do other local
governments
7
8
General authority of governments
over airports
Host Jurisdiction
Federal Government -FAA
Airport Owner/Proprietor
Everyone Else
9
Airport ownership and location are
important
−Terminology
−Host government
−Airport owner/operator/proprietor
−Complex relationship between airport
operator and host government
−Especially complicated when --
−Airport is not owned/operated by the “host”
local government
10
Types of federal preemption
−Total: Federal government has complete
control over use of runways, airfield and
navigable airspace
−Conflict: Extremely limited authority on local
restrictions on use of airport facilities
−No preemption: Initial siting, and decision to
open an airport; local health and safety
regulation of some airport facilities
10
11
Federal regulation practically affects everything related to an airport
11
Siting of airport
facilities (hangars,
on-airport services
and businesses)
Ability of an
aircraft operator
to use a desired
airport
Liability for
takings, inverse
condemnation
Development of
airport-related
businesses Regulation of
nearby land
uses and
zoning
Construction and
use of runways,
taxiways, etc.
12
FAA and airport operator powers
EXCLUSIVE
FAA AUTHORITY
SHARED WITH AIRPORT
OPERATOR
Use of airspace Airport operations
Aircraft certification Aircraft operations
Pilot certification and
regulation
Financial matters
Aircraft noise Noise abatement, mitigation
Aircraft safety Airfield safety 12
13
Remaining authority of host
governments (in California)
13
−Siting of new airports
−Airport enlargement beyond boundary
−Off airport zoning
14
Applying principles to Palomar Airport
15
Who is responsible for what at Palomar?
−FAA
−Aircraft in flight
−Airport regulation
−Airport airfield design
−San Diego County
−Airport operation
−Planning, regulation of on-airport land use
−City of Carlsbad
16
City land use authority
17
Brief airport history
−1959: Airport opened
−1975: Airport master plan proposed to include new
runway and land acquisition –never implemented
−1978: City annexed airport property into City
−1980: Citizens initiative approved by City ordinance
−1980: CUP approved
−1984: City adopted resolution requesting joint powers
agreement
−1997: County approved Master Plan –development
within existing boundaries
−2004: City approved CUP amendment for parking areas
18
Land use authority: Section 21.53.015
−July 1980: Initiative petition
−August 1980: City Council ordinance to add
initiative language
−Ordinance interpreted as though it is an
initiative
19
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 purposes.
(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. (Ord. 9804 §5, 1986; Ord. 9558 §1, 1980).
Section 21.53.015
20
Section 21.53.015
−No City approval required for Master Plan
update itself
−Focus instead on whether City approval is
required for specific activities that Master
Plan proposes
21
What activities does Master Plan
contemplate?
−Airfield improvements, changes
−Runway relocation and extension
−Facility improvements
−NO land acquisition
22
Applicability of 21.53.015
Is a zone change, general plan
amendment or other legislative
enactment necessary to
authorize it?
No vote
required
yes no
Is there an
expansion?
No.
No vote
required
Yes.
Vote
required
yes
Is a zone change, general plan
amendment or other legislative
enactment necessary to
authorize it?
no
No vote
required
23
Is there an expansion?
−Not defined in 21.53.015
−Different definitions in different state,
federal and local laws
−Definition should preserve validity of entire
ordinance
24
Our conclusion
−Expansion refers to enlargement of airport
boundaries
−Definition preserves validity of the ordinance
−Historical context
−Legislative context
25
Regardless of definition of expansion, is
a zone change, general plan
amendment or other legislative act
necessary to authorize the Master Plan?
26
Our conclusion
−Master Plan activities do not require
−Zone change or
−General Plan amendment or
−Any other City legislative enactment
−Therefore 21.53.015 is not triggered
27
Conditional Use Permit 172
−History
−1978: airport property annexed to City
−September 1980: site rezoned
−September 1980: CUP adopted
−2004: amended by CUP 172(B) to allow use
of 3 adjacent parcels for airport parking.
28
Conditional Use Permit 172: key provisions
−“Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted”
−Permitted uses set forth in Table 1
−Approval of any uses not listed in Table 1
and/or expansion of airport facility
requires a CUP amendment
29
Conditional Use Permit 172 -Table 1
−Structures and facilities necessary for the
operation of the airport and the control of
air traffic . . including but not limited to . .
−Commercial aviation activities
−Other related uses
30
Conditional Use Permit 172 –Table 1
Authorized structures and facilities
Taxiways
Aircraft hangars
Air traffic control towers and facilities
Navigation equipment and structures
Airport administration buildings
Airport passenger terminal buildings and facilities
Heliports
Fuel farms
Automobile parking lots and structures
Maintenance buildings
31
Conditional Use Permit 172
−Authorized commercial activities
−Flight and ground schools
−Aircraft sales
−Aircraft hangar and tie down rentals
−Aircraft leasing
−Equipment repair
−Aircraft ground support equipment repair, etc
−Aircraft cleaning, painting, fuel facilities
−Airlines, scheduled and nonscheduled
−Others
32
Our conclusions - CUP
−No CUP amendment required because:
−No new uses –Master Plan are activities listed in
CUP
−No expansion of airport boundary
−City should continue to assess actual activities
33
CUP amendment would not trigger
21.53.015
−Section 21.53.015 applies to any
“legislative enactment”
−Even if a CUP amendment were required,
adopting an amendment is not a
legislative enactment
−Not everything the City Council does is a
“legislative enactment”
34
A note about sovereign immunity
−Counties generally not subject to City
ordinances (sovereign immunity)
−County position:
−It is exempt from City ordinances
−Compliance with CUP is voluntary
−No waiver of its immunity
−Not affected by charter city status
35
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
36
Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) Process
−County (SDCRAA) must adopt compatibility
plan
−Intended to insure compatible uses adjacent to
airport
−Doesn’t apply both ways!
−County (SDCRAA) will need to update 2010
ALUCP
−City may need to update City General Plan to
be consistent with updated ALUCP
−City update not required for Master Plan
implementation
37
CEQA –Draft PEIR
−Draft EIR issued by County as lead
agency
−City not a responsible agency
−City providing formal comments on draft
−City can request additional mitigation
−As projects come up, opportunity to
comment on additional environmental
analysis
38
What else can City or residents do?
−Direct legal authority is limited
−Zoning to reduce encroachment
−Monitor fly friendly programs
−Departure procedures
−Pilot education
−Incentives and disincentives
−Noise mitigation and abatement planning
39
Working with the County
−Participate in NEPA process
−Noise compatibility planning (Part 150)
−Identifying potential problems in advance
−Working with users, operators
−Monitor mitigation commitments
DISCUSSION
Peter J. Kirsch
Sarah M. Rockwell
111
41
Issues of concern
−Safety justification for Master Plan update
−Airport design group designation
−Noise impacts
−Terminal expansion
−Runway extension
−Commercial service
−Next Gen flight patterns