HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-31; City Council; ; City comments on recirculated portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact ReportOn April 10, 2018, the City Council discussed the city's goals and objectives concerning the
airport, and directed staff to: 1. Enter into discussions with the County of San Diego over future
airport operations and facilities; 2. Initiate a stakeholder dialogue to identify and understand
community concerns and priorities about airport operations and facilities; and 3. Develop and
implement an action plan to guide the city's approach related to the airport in the future.
Staff is currently engaged in an ongoing dialogue with County staff, and on June 19, 2018, the
city hosted a public meeting to discuss how city officials and the community can work together
to influence the future of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The meeting was attended by
approximately 80 people, and the dialogue that occurred will inform a future City Council
agenda item to discuss a recommended city action plan.
After reviewing public comments received during the initial public review period, the County
determined it was necessary to recirculate certain portions of the Draft PEIR, including
Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Use and Conservation, and several
exhibits. The recirculated portions of the Draft PEIR have been released for a 46-day public
review period that closes August 6, 2018.
The city has continued to work with the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell in preparing a draft
comment letter regarding the recirculated portions of the Draft PEIR, which is being presented
for City Council review and approval, consistent with the City Council's prior direction (Exhibit
1). As there may be a need to incorporate minor technical edits following City Council review
and approval, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a draft letter and authorize
the City Attorney to make any necessary final revisions.
Fiscal Analysis
No city funding is being requested at this time.
Next Steps
Staff will finalize the city comment letter for signature and submittal to the County. Staff will
continue to pursue other strategies to address community concerns about airport operations,
and will return to the City Council for further discussion and direction to staff.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Approving a comment letter does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA} per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code
Section 54950 et seq.), published and distributed at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date
and time.
Exhibits
1. DRAFT -City of Carlsbad comments on recirculated portions of the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Draft PEIR
2
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 2 of 10
DRAFT
July 31, 2018
Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego
Department of Public Works
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92123
Exhibit 1
(city of
Carlsbad
Re: Comments on Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master
Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Curtis:
The City of Carlsbad submits the attached comments on the Recirculated Portions of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
The City looks forward to continuing discussions with San Diego County to ensure that
the Master Plan Update and its various project components are undertaken in a manner that
does not compromise the health and well-being of Carlsbad residents, while ensuring that
requirements for safety and air navigation are met at the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Sincerely,
Scott Chadwick
City Manager
cc: Carlsbad City Council
City Manager's Office
City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2820 t
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 3 of 10
CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMENTS
. ON RECIRCULATED PORTIONS OF DRAFT PEIR
Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined below have the meanings set forth in the
Draft PEIR. References to CEQA Guidelines refer to California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 -15387.
I. Recirculated Biological Resources Section
a) General Comments
i. We reaffirm our March 13, 2018 comments on this section.
Among other items, we note that this recirculated analysis still does not assess whether a
relocated MALSR would impact the existing Conservation Easement area at the west end of the
eastern parcel (see our Draft PEIR comment II.B.6.b, page 21).
ii. Given that this recirculated section identifies new significant
impacts that were not previously analyzed, please explain why the alternatives analysis in the
Draft PEIR was not updated and recirculated as well.
b) Page 2-18, third paragraph. Figure 2.2-1 also shows a preserve area. This
should be the area of most concern and the area which would appear to be affected by MAL SR
relocation. This description should be updated to include discussion of the preserve area.
c) Page 2-18, third paragraph. It should be noted that any changes to the pre-
negotiated preserve area must be approved by the wildlife agencies, according to the March 7,
2011 agreement letter with the wildlife agencies (see Appendix Hof the draft PEIR [Appendix
B] Biological Resources Technical Report, ''North County MSCP Hardline for the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Runway Expansion and Eastern Parcel Development Project"). The proposed
mitigation measure should be modified to acknowledge that wildlife agency approval to modify
PAMA/preserve boundaries is required for the mitigation measure to be effective.
d) Page 2-18, fourth paragraph. The area in question ( shown in red on Figure
2.2-1) is designated preserve area, not PAMA. Also, the potentially affected area on the eastern
parcel is designated preserve area.
e) Page 2-19, second paragraph, last sentence. This sentence fails to
acknowledge that there are 10.2 acres of designated critical habitat for the San Diego thommint
(Draft PEIR Figure 2.2-2; PEIR Appendix B, p. 23) on the Eastern Parcel. To make this
description complete, please add a discussion of the critical habitat designation for the San Diego
thommint.
f) Page 2-20, last paragraph. Please note that habitat impacts within the
agreed-upon preserve area would require negotiation and approval of the wildlife agencies, not
simply applying mitigation ratios (see March 7, 2011 letter from wildlife agencies to the
County.)
2
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 4 of 10
g) Page 2-22, reference to Figure 2.2-3. Figure 2.2-3 does not show the
eastern parcel habitat types/vegetation communities. The figure should be updated or a new one
added (such as Figure 1 of the May 31, 2018 Biological Resources Technical Addendum) to
correspond to this updated sub-section and tables.
h) Page 2-26, Section 2.2.1.6 (Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors).
Please expand this section to discuss habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor impacts to the
Eastern Parcel. Note that the Eastern Parcel is part of Core #5 under the City's Habitat
Management Plan (see Habitat Management Plan, Section D.2.E and Figure 4).
i) Page 2-28, first paragraph under Special Status Plant Species. Please
strike the word "unoccupied" in the fifth line. San Diego thommint is present within the critical
habitat area, as shown in Figure 1 of the May 31, 2018 Biological Resources Technical
Addendum, and the critical habitat is therefore occupied.
j) Page 2-29, second to last paragraph. Given that MALSR relocation would
take place concurrent with or after the long-term runway shift 13-20 years from now, and given
that the MALSR's precise location within the critical habitat area is only estimated at this time, it
would seem prudent to consider impact to the San Diego thommint to be potentially significant
unless mitigated. While the 2016 rare plant survey detected San Diego thommint some 85 feet
from the estimated impact area, it is conceivable that additional thommint plants could establish
themselves within the critical habitat area a decade or two from now. Therefore, a mitigation
measure should be included to require that an updated rare plant survey be conducted prior to
relocation of the MALSR to confirm that no impacts to the San Diego thommint would occur. If
an updated survey concludes an impact would result, then appropriate mitigation measures
consistent with the NCMSCP or other applicable guidance should be implemented.
k) Page 2-38, second line and M-BI-5. The referenced letter does not specify
the mitigation ratio for vernal pool impacts. Instead, the letter indicates an estimate .20 acre of
vernal pool impact to be mitigated through creation/restoration on 6.78 acres of fallow/ag area,
referenced to an exhibit that is not attached to the letter. Please substantiate that the 2011 letter
agreement with the wildlife agencies allows the lower 1: 1 mitigation ratio for the vernal pool
impacts, rather than the higher 5: 1 ratio required by County Guidelines.
1) Page 2-39, M-BI-7. Per the referenced letter, changes to the agreed-upon
preserve area (MALSR relocation would affect the designated preserve area) would require
approval by the wildlife agencies. The Draft PEIR should disclose this.
m) Page 2-39, M-BI-8. The 2011 wildlife agencies letter assumes all .the non-
native grassland would be preserved. Given that MALSR relocation would impact some of the
preserved non-native grassland, concurrence by the wildlife agencies would be required,
according to the letter's terms. This should be disclosed in the PEIR. Also, mitigation measure
M-BI-8 should specify that the draft NCMSCP requires 1: 1 mitigation for non-native grassland
3
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 5 of 10
impacts within a PAMA, not 0.5 :1 as shown in Table 2.2-4 [see Appendix A to Draft NCMSCP,
https ://www. sandiegocounty. gov I content/ dam/ sdc/pds/mscp/ docs/ AppendixAN CBM O. pdf]. The
table should be corrected to reflect the higher mitigation requirement of the NCMSCP.
II. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, Revised Draft PEIR, Section 3.1.5
We have the following comments on the revised Draft PEIR GHG emissions section.
a) Although revisions to the greenhouse gas (GHG) section address a few of
Carlsbad's comments on the original Draft PEIR section, we still have many concerns about this
analysis. In summary, the revised section still appears to use an improper baseline, improper
thresholds of significance, and improper calculation methodologies. If these errors were
corrected, it appears that impacts would be significant and mitigation would be required.
b) The revised GHG impact analysis does not address Carlsbad's comments
on the original Draft PEIR related to aviation emissions. The revised section continues to assert
(see, e.g., p. 3-55) that since the County has no authority to regulate aircraft or their emissions,
there is no applicable methodology or threshold with which to evaluate their significance. Even
if the County cannot directly regulate aircraft emissions, the Draft PEIR must still disclose those
emissions, include them in impact significance determinations, and address the feasibility of
mitigating any significant impacts, for example, through changing those airport operations which
the County does control. See Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Bd. of
Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708 (County was not preempted from disclosing rail
operations impacts caused by refinery expansion and identifying feasible mitigation measures,
even though it was preempted from directly regulating mainline rail operations).
c) Although the revised Draft PEIR section addresses some of Carlsbad's
comments on the original Draft PEIR related to significance thresholds and analysis
methodologies, the approach used still is inconsistent with CEQA requirements. The revised
discussion of significance (pp. 3-63 and 3-64), although it purports to use Appendix G criteria as
requested by Carlsbad's comments, improperly discusses different thresholds of significance
with different impact analysis methodologies for aviation-related vs. non-aviation-related
emissions for determining whether the project would "generate GHG emissions, either directly
indirectly, that would have a significant effect on the environment" (the Appendix G criterion).
The revised Draft PEIR should present a quantitative threshold of significance that applies to all
project emissions sources combined-amortized construction emissions plus aviation-related
emissions plus non-aviation-related emissions.
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 gives each lead agency the affirmative duty to develop
its own GHG methodologies and thresholds for each regardless of project type. Carlsbad requests
that the lead agency explain how the following sentence (p. 3-64) applies to the EIR analysis:
"[in] the absence of state or local thresholds for GHG emissions from aviation sources, State
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria shall apply to determine if the proposed project would
result in a significant impact."
d) The 900 MT C02E CAPCOA "screening level" described on Draft PEIR
pages 3-64 and 3-65, although explained further in the revised Draft PEIR section, is still
incorrectly described and applied. The 900 MT screening level should not be applied separately
4
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 6 of 10
to amortized construction emissions, but instead should be applied to combined amortized
construction and operational emissions. These combined emissions are presented in a new
improperly-labeled "cumulative impact analysis" section; both construction and operational
emissions are generated by the same proposed project, not different projects.
The combined emissions in that section, even though based on a future baseline only,
clearly exceed the 900 MT "screening level" and therefore should be considered significant. The
Draft EIR defends the 900 MT figure as a "screening level" for further analysis, when actually it
or a similar small figure should serve as a CEQA significance threshold if a net zero threshold is
not adopted (see next comment). Almost all of the air district screening levels cited to support
the 900 MT figure actually use this or similarly small bright-line thresholds as a CEQA threshold
of significance triggering mitigation obligations, not as a screening level that merely triggers
further analysis.1 The Carlsbad and Escondido CAP screening levels cited in the revised section
merely identify projects too small for implementation of CAP GHG reduction measures, and are
inapplicable to CEQA analysis of the Master Plan Update.
f) To achieve SB 32's ambitious 2030 GHG reduction target of 40% below
1990 levels, the 2017 Scoping Plan (pp. 101-102) recommends a net zero threshold for project
EIRs unless it is infeasible to achieve. A net zero threshold should be used to judge the
significance of the proposed project's combined construction and operational GHG emissions
unless the revised Draft PEIR demonstrates it is infeasible to achieve. CEQA case law has
recognized that even small amounts of GHG emissions may be cumulatively considerable and
thus significant. See Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of
Governments (201 7) 3 Cal. 5th 497
g) Instead, the revised Draft PEIR improperly applies an efficiency threshold
(3.01 MT C02e/SP/yr) to judge the significance of operational and cumulative GHG impacts.
The 2017 Scoping Plan intends efficiency thresholds to apply primarily to local plans, not to
projects, for which a net zero threshold is recommended (see pp. 99-102). Although the 2017
Scoping Plan does state that lead agencies may develop evidence-based numeric thresholds for
project EIRs consistent with the Scoping Plan, the Draft PEIR continues to use all of San Diego
County's emissions in the numerator and the entire San Diego County service population as a
denominator when calculating the proposed project's efficiency threshold (pp. 3-65 to 3-66).
To be "evidence-based" and applicable to Master Plan emissions, the Draft PEIR
should have used the airport-specific emissions in the numerator and airport-specific service
population in the denominator. It is not a reasonable assumption that the airport-specific service
population should include all potential airport users of the catchment area, since only a small
percentage of the catchment area population would use the airport in a given year, if ever. By
way of contrast, the Draft PEIR traffic analysis is based on vehicle trips generated by expected
airport users, rather than all potential users of a geographic region.
Such a calculation would result in a much lower efficiency threshold, one that
would accurately measure the 2036 airport-SP,ecific emission reductions needed to be consistent
1 BAAQMD (2017), Air Quality Guidelines, Table 2-1; San Luis Obispo County APCD (2012), Greenhouse Gas
Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, Table 10; SMAQMD (2015), Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento
County (2015); SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table.
5
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 7 of 10
with the 2017 Scoping Plan, the State's long-term climate goals, and current scientific
knowledge.
A Countywide efficiency threshold of significance that comprehensively includes all
emissions sources in the County is not applicable to a relatively small airport project with limited
em1ss10ns sources.
h) Further, as stated in the City's comments on the original Draft PEIR, the
operational impact analysis is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, which states,
in part, that the significance of GHG emissions should be determined by whether the project
increases GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting ( emphasis added).
The operational impact analysis uses only a future baseline (future conditions without project);
see, e.g., Table 3.1.5-6. However, the environmental setting (existing conditions) normally
constitutes the baseline by which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a). A future baseline, if supported by substantial evidence, may
also be used in addition to the existing environmental setting, but cannot be the sole baseline
unless use of the existing environmental setting would be uninformative or misleading.
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th
439. The Draft PEIR cites FAA Guidance recommending comparison of future no project and
proposed project emissions (p. 3-62), but this guidance does not supersede CEQA's requirements
for also presenting an analysis using an existing conditions baseline.
As with in the City's comments on the original Draft PEIR, the revised Draft PEIR still
does not demonstrate that using an existing conditions baseline would be uninformative or
misleading. Therefore, the Draft PEIR text should be revised to include an operational GHG
emissions impact analysis using existing conditions as a baseline. The revised Draft EIR
apparently attempted to provide this analysis by presenting total future GHG emissions in new
Tables 3 .1.5-8 and 3 .1.5-9, but there is no comparison of these future total GHG emissions to
existing GHG emissions to allow Draft PEIR readers to understand the magnitude of the increase
over existing conditions caused by the Master Plan.
i) As mentioned in the City's comments on the original Draft PEIR, even 1
under a future baseline, the GHG increases from operational activities are quite large (as shown
in Table 3.1.5-6. a net increase of 13,469 MTC02e/yr under Scenario PAL 1, and 24,115
MTC02e/yr under Scenario PAL 2). Using an existing conditions baseline2 would add an
additional 15,290 MTC02e/yr to these increases (Table 3.1.5-5 total minus Table 3.1.5-1 total).
These large increases should be considered significant impacts whether a net zero or a 900 MT
significance is used. Further, the analysis does not appear to include existing and future '
emissions by all of the various FBOs/tenants, and thus does not provide a complete picture of
airport related GHG emissions (see, e.g. Table 3.1.5-2).
j) Regarding plan conflicts, the revised Draft PEIR still does not recognize
that the Master Plan's combined construction and operational GHG emissions are significant
because they are inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed project's large GHG
emissions increases are inconsistent with the state's ability to achieve the steep declines in GHG
2 Note that the revised Draft PEIR's quantifications of existing and future no-project GHG emissions are too low
because they omit mobile source emissions. See Tables 3.1.5-1 and 3.1/5-5, where motor vehicle emissions are
shown as "NIA."
6
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 8 of 10
emissions called for in the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the proposed project should incorporate
stationary and mobile source GHG reduction strategies described in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Contrary to the revised Draft PEIR's assertion, the Scoping Plan, which serves as the
fundamental statewide GHG reduction plan, is highly applicable to the Master Plan's emissions
even if it excludes explicit goals for reducing aviation GHG emissions.
The proposed project's combined construction and operational GHG emissions should
also be considered significant because they are inconsistent with the adopted County CAP. The
revised Draft PEIR does disclose that the proposed project's emissions are not included in the
County CAP emission projections, which itself is a grounds for inconsistency. The new analysis
purporting to show CAP consistency should be revised for at least two reasons. First, it uses the
CAP "consistency checklist" as the exclusive means for determining proposed project
consistency with the CAP. However, this checklist expressly applies to "development projects,"
which means private development projects, rather than to discretionary approvals of new County
facilities.3 CAP consistency could appropriately be showing consistency with applicable CAP
measures that are applicable to County facilities and the Master Plan, 4 but the revised Draft EIR
contains no such analysis. This analysis should be included to show the consistency of the
proposed Project with the County CAP.
Second, the one (inapplicable) CAP measure consistency finding that the revised Draft
PEIR does present needs further evidentiary support. The revised Draft PEIR assumes the
proposed project will meet a 15 percent reduction in commute VMT emissions (Measure la),
compared to the CAP's 2014 baseline year, and makes assurances that the proposed project
would comply with County policies targeting VMT reduction. However, the project description
does not include commitments to any specific VMT reduction measures to accomplish this
target, and the EIR transportation and air quality analyses do not show that the proposed project
will achieve the 15% reduction target.
k) Based on the above comments, as stated in the City's comments on the
original Draft PEIR, the proposed project's GHG emissions impact appears to be significant. The
revised Draft PEIR should therefore be further revised to reach this conclusion and then present
feasible measures or alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen this impact. Potentially feasible
mitigation measures can be derived from the County CAP GHG reduction measures referenced
above, from the City of Carlsbad's adopted Climate Action Plan, and from the San Diego
Forward Final EIR (e.g., Mitigation Measure GHG-4H). In addition, Section 4 of the Draft
Climate Change Technical Report offers a number of GHG reduction mitigation measures that
3 This is demonstrated by many checklist features, including "Application Information" page that requires the
applicant's name and contact information to be provided (p. A-1), and references to Coupty Department of Planning
and Development Services review of"development applications" (p. A-2). Furthermore, the checklist questions
explicitly address only residential and non-residential projects, not County facilities for which the CAP contains a
distinct set of GHG reduction measures. None of the checklist questions refer to a single CAP measure that applies
to County facilities and operations (pp. A-6 through A-10).
4 These measures include:
E-2.4 Increase use of on-site renewable electricity generation for County operations
T-2.3 Reduce county employee VMT
T-3.2 Use alternative fuels in County projects
T-3.4 Reduce the County's fleet emissions
E-1.4 Reduce energy use intensity at County facilities
W-1.3 Reduce potable water consumption at County facilities
7
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 9 of 10
the County could implement as part of the Master Plan. These include electric-powered Ground
Power Units and Ground Support Equipment, both of which the Technical Report considers to be
potentially feasible.
1) The revised Draft PEIR should be further revised to use a proper baseline,
proper thresholds of significance, and proper calculation methodologies and then provide
appropriate mitigation for significant impacts.
III. Energy Use and Conservation Analysis, Revised Draft PEIR, Section 3.1.10
The revised Draft PEIR now includes an energy impact analysis, as requested by City
comments on the original Draft EIR. However, the operational energy impact analysis should be
further revised, because, like the operational GHG analysis, it does not compare energy future
use to an existing energy use baseline. Rather, it uses only a future baseline as the basis for
determining quantitative energy impacts. An EIR must quantify a project's energy impacts
compared to existing conditions, and then determine whether a proposed project may result in
significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy. See, e.g., Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912; California Clean
Energy Com. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173.
8
July 31, 2018 Item #3 Page 10 of 10
Leticia Reyes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Council Internet Email
Monday, July 30, 2018 8:26 AM
Leticia Reyes
Jason Haber
FW: Palomar airport expansion
All Receive -Agenda Item #-3
For the lnferm.ition ef the:
CITY COUNCIL . ACM ./ CA ./ CC / D.tte 1-$0,J'i, CM / COO / ---
Please distribute to council.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Pili
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 12:26 PM
To: PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca'.gov; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Palomar airport expansion
Hello.
I want to provide you my opinion that there should be no additional airport expansion at Palomar airport.
There is no demand for a regional airline at Palomar. Every small airline that attempts fails.
Thank you
Ray Pili
Sent from my iPhone
1
HAND DELIVERED
July 30, 2018
Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
Anne Bertussi
Carlsbad, CA 92008
All Receive - Agenda Item # _Q_ For the Information of the: cwcou�L /ACM CA CC v" Datel-jO CM v coo_
Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172
(CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No.1699.
Dear Ms. Engleson:
Please distribute copies of the attached letter dated July 30, 2018, and its related attachment, to
the city council members, the city planning commission members, and the city staff listed on the
first page of the letter, as soon as possible. Thank you very much for the assistance.
Sincerely, Cr·• V{ffl,-�1�}-A-<N., -r -l30f%
Giovanni Be�ssi, Jr. Anne T. Bertussi
Enclosure (letter dated July 30, 2018 w/attachment) ...
_,
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
Anne Bertussi Carlsbad, CA 92008
HAND DELIVERED
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members
Carlsbad Planning Commission Members
Mr. Kevin Crawford, City Manager Mr. Don Neu, City Planner c/o Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have recently reviewed many of the City of Carlsbad's online documents relating to the Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP-172), related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699, and related City staff and public agency reports and correspondence. We
have also recently reviewed the McClellan Palomar Airport's Draft Environmental Impact Rep01i and related appendices (EIR) prepared in connection with its Master Plan Update (MPU).
We are ve;y concerri�d the airport is proposing significant alterations to its facilities that are outside the scope of its CUP-172 without going through the City's CUP amendment process.
The airport currently does not intend apply for an amendment to its existing conditional use
permit with the City of Carlsbad as stated in its draft EIR. Does the City agree with this?
The airport MPU's proposed projects and modifications do not appear to be in compliance with CUP-172, Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A" appears to specifically control and limit airport development activities to those shown on the exhibit (see Exhibit "A", airport facility
map/drawing� ;and CDP� 172 Condition No. 1 ). In addition, CUP-172 Table 1 appears to detail
permitted uses only. The airport's proposed MPU projects and modifications are extensive, and
they will completely alter the airport's existing facilities, operations, flight paths, noise contours,
etc.
The City's "Initial Study Summary" dated August 25, 1980 (prepared by the City's planning department to study CUP-172) is also important to consider.
· 1·::.1 .·, , .. ' ·r
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members et al
Page 2 of 3
This document discusses several matters, and states "the Cond1tional Use Permit is intended to
serve on an interim basis until various land use and noise abatement studies are complete. No
substantial development or expansion of the airport will be permitted until those studies are
complete and the existing CUP is revised." The existing CUP has never been revised, and the
preceding discussion also appears to relate directly to CUP-172 Condition No. 7. Did the City
. Planning Director subsequently comply with the directive of Condition No. 7? · What did
the City Planning Commission subsequently determine regarding these matters?
A City planning document relating to CUP-172, dated July 11, 1996 (from the City's Planning
Director to the City Manager) also states in part, "Airport staff would like to bring the Master
Plan forward for Planning Commission and City Council review as an information item. Staff
has reviewed the draft Plan and determined that the Master Plan is _substantially different
from the Airport plans previously approved under CUP 172 (approved by Planning
Commission September 24; 1980). Therefore, staff proposes to advise the Airport staff that
they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan. Airport staff have
expressed concern regarding an update of their CUP. Their problem with the CUP amendment is
the potential for public objections to the proposed Master Plan which could jeopardize new
airport terminal improvements." We believe County airport personnel are once again attempting
to improperly eliminate public objections to their new Master Plan projects by failing to
recognize the need for a CUP amendment. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
The develcipmenfprofocts proposed in the airport's new MPU are also "substantially different
from the Airport plans previously approved under CUP 172". However, the County is asserting
it does not require a CUP amendment because, "The City issued Conditional Use Permit -172 to
grant the County the right to make alterations to facilities that are necessary to the operation of the
airport. The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the CUP because it proposes changes to
facilities that are necessary to provide for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. Moreover,
the County is immune from City zoning ordinances under state law and there is broad federal
preemption of non-sponsor regulations of on-airport facility improvements; particularly, where
necessary.to meet FAA design .criteria." _.
The preceding assertion is misleading because the proposed MPU projects are all discretionary,
and they not necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport as currently designed
and operated. Furthermore, this assertion does not appear to be supported by the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the California Public Utilities Code, or the McClellan.,Palomar Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan. Accordingly, when is the City going to advise Airport staff they
must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan projects?
Finally, the· airport's MPU.projects will also significantly negatively impact thousands of
residents of the City of Carlsbad.
July30,2018 ·.· . .·
Carlsbad City Council Members et al ·
Page 3 of 3
Please see the attached letter dated March 16, 2018, to the Environmental Planning Manager of
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airport bi vision (prepared previously
in connection with our review of the airport's draft MPU EIR), detailing many airport MPU EIR
deficiencies and inaccuracies city council members, city planning commission members, and city
staff may, or may not, already be aware of.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We look forward to receiving a response
to our inquiries.
Sincerely,
{7;avc;m ."lJ"4r,;J . --A~ -f B~·
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr. 1
. Anne T. Bertussi
Attachment (letter dated March 16, 2018)
March 16, 2018
GIOVANNI BERTUSSI, JR.
ANNE-BERTUSSI
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123
Re: DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - McCLELLAN
PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE - SCH# 2016021105
Dear L_adies and Gentlemen,
We have reviewed the McClellan Palomar Airport's (the "Airport") Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report and related appendices (the "EIR") prepared in connection with its Master Plan Update ("MPU"). After reviewing the EIR, we are very disappointed, noting numerous significant deficiencies
discussed in further detail throughout this letter. Furthermore, as a result of these significant deficiencies, we do not believe the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). We also do not believe the Airport is currently being operated in accordance with current Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") airport design standards, significantly
negatively impacting unrecognized residential land uses within the Airport's noise impact area.
Summarized below are numerous general and specific deficiencies that must be properly considered, evaluated and addressed in the EIR as mandated by CEQA. These general and specific deficiencies are
environmentally significant, and they are applicable to the Airport at both the program and project-specific levels.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EIR REPORT -General Deficiencies
I.Current Updated Airport Operational Information is Not Included, Analyzed and Consideredin the EIR
Current updated Airport operational information with significant actual and potential environmental impacts on surrounding land uses is not properly considered and included in the EIR and related technical reports. Instead, outdated inaccurate information has been excessively utilized and relied on in
the preparation of the EIR, producing significantly inaccurate and misleading results.
The Airport's flight operations and fleet mix have changed dramatically over the past twenty (20) years. Airport Management, County of San Diego staff, and consultants hired to assist the Airport with its Master Plan Update process and El R should have recognized the need to obtain and validate current airport operational information to properly study and analyze current environmental impacts associated with its
new 20-Year Master Plan Update. In addition, inquiry and validation testing of potentially outdated and inaccurate Airport operational information to be relied on should have been initiated at Step 1 in the MPU
process (the "MPUP"). This oversight has resulted in the omission of current accurate airport operating information in the EIR, the failure to recognize negatively impacted residential land uses within the Airport's influence area, and the failure to properly prepare the EIR in compliance with
CEQA.
·· .... · .... · ..
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 2 of 10
Re: DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -McCLELLAN-
PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE -SCH# 2016021105
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE EIR REPORT -General Deficiencies (Continued)
I. Current Updated Airport Operational Information is Not Included, Analyzed and Considered
in the EIR (Continued)
The outdated and inaccurate Airport operating information included iri the Airport's preliminary
draft EIR is misleading, and it does not properly document the Airport's current operating
environment, and associated flight related conditions and impacts . As a result, numerous significant
environmental impacts and effects associated with the implementation of the Airport's Master Plan
Update and related improvement projects have not been properly recognized and considered as required
by CEQA.
Finally, current accurate airport operational information is also essential to obtain informed public input
throughout the update process, to enable elected officials to make proper decisions, and to properly
evaluate the reasonable usage of taxpayer funds.
II. Public Comments Submitted in Response to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (281 Pages)
Were Not Properly Considered and Evaluated in the EIR
The EIR Report does not include a comprehensive professional review of potential environmental impacts
associated with the Airport's Master Plan Update. For example, the EIR Report does not properly
consider, evaluate and address the two hundred and eighty one pages (281) of timely preliminary written
public comments submitted and received by the Airport in connection with its Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study "NOP/IS" (see Appendix A -NOP/IS, pages 59 through 340). These public comments are almost
completely ignored in the EIR. ·
Almost every· public comment received includes references fo significant potential environmental impacts
and requests for consideration that are not properly considered and addressed in the EIR, as required by
CEQA. Many of these potential impacts and requests for consideration were ignored by the Airport, and
improperly omitted from the EIR, and many were improperly considered and addressed in the EIR. As a
result, many significant environmental impacts (including noise and air quality impacts and related
considerations, among other impacts) were only addressed by the Airport for proposed MPU construction
activities, and not for Airport flight and related operational activities, among other matters.
Ill. Current Accurate Airport Operational Information Was Disregarded in the MPU Process
· Resulting in 'Biased Airport Preliminary Decision Making and EIR Impact Evaluation ·
The El R's "Project Synopsis (Section S.1 )" notes a primary purpose of the MPU is to evaluate proposed
improvements and base their constructability on their ability to meet technical, economic and
environmental considerations. The Public was not informed of accurate planned Airport projections
resulting from its MPUP for proposed C-111 and D-111 aircraft operations (i.e. departures and arrivals) until
recent EIR Report public meetings held in February 2018. The Airport is only projecting approximately
1,500 total future operations each year from both classes of these aircraft combined (approximately 4
per day).
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 5 of 10
only refers to the aggregate public communications received, minimizes the significance ofthe
communications, and does not properly and directly consider and address the 281 pages of
important public content and concerns communicated.
4) The Financially Feasible Objective of Preferred Alternative Modified C/D-111 ls Not Addressed
The financial feasibility objective of the Airport's preferred Modified C/D-111 alternative is not
properly addressed in the EIR. This preferred alternative does not appear to be financially responsible
as discussed in General Deficiency Ill, its future financial implications have not been disclosed to the
public, and its near and long-term needs have not been addressed in a manner demonstrating this
alternative is financially responsible, financially achievable, and operationally sustainable. Accordingly, it
does not appear the preferred alternative is financially reasonable, or should be eligible for FAA grant
funding .
5) Chapter 1 -Significant Project Description, Location and Environmental Setting Inaccuracies
In Chapter 1 of the EIR, the Airport improperly asserts the County has no authority over the
quantity, type, or flight track of an aircraft arriving or departing from the airport attempting to limit
its CEQA impact analysis responsibilities, and related mitigation matter considerations.
Accordingly, the Airport has not analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with its aircraft
flight operations, and if appears to be using this inaccurate assertion to justify this significant omission.
This assertion directly contradicts the Airport's Noise Program outline presented to the general public in
February 2018, acknowledging the Airport can implement a voluntary noise abatement program
establishing "Where andwhen pilots should fly". In addition, the Airport is subject to a FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program ("NCP") Agreement that was reviewed and approved by the FAA in
December 2006. The Airport's NCP is developed by the Airport, not the FAA, and submitted to the FAA
for approval. It includes, recommendations regarding its noise abatement operational measures (10), land
use planning/management elements (6), and program management measures (16).
Furthermore, the Airport's NCP is a local program, and not a Federal program. Accordingly, Airport
management is responsible for addressing and implementing the Airport's approved NCP
recommendations (not the FAA), and it is responsible for doing so. The Airport is also not
currently in compliance with many of its own noise abatement recommendations, severely
negatively impacting neighboring residential communities. The Airport also incorrectly implies flight
tracks are the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. The Airport does have authority regarding the flight track of an
aircraft when matters regarding its Noise Compatibility Program ("NCP") with the FAA are involved , and
the Airport needs to recognize its NCP responsibilities to the community.
The FAA does ncitsub'stitute its judgment for thafof the Airport with respect to which 1NCP measures
should be recommended for action, and the FAA's approval of the Airport's recommendations in the NCP
is also limited to certain determinations. Subsequent decisions or a request for Federal action to
implement specific noise compatibility measures may also be required , and may require an environmental
assessment, other procedures or requirements, provided he FAA is made aware of the matter by the
Airport.
Upon review, the Airport's current NCP with the FAA was also found to include many deficiencies found
during review of the EIR, presumably for similar reasons. Please see the following section for additional
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 6 of 10
· information concerning the Airport's NCP noncompliance, and related EIR impacts requiring further
consideration.
The Airport's description of surrounding land uses in the environmental setting section of the EIR is also
inaccurate and incomplete, and it does not provide a proper baseline condition to compare MPU project
impacts in compliance with CEQA (see Section 1.4.2). The description of residential land uses in the
vicinity of the Airport omits many nearby residential land uses that should be included and considered for
impacts (e .g. Evans Point, Eagles Canyon, Camino Hills Estates, Heron Bay, Spyglass Hills, etc., etc.).
6) The Project Objectives Section (1.1) of the EIR Implies an Airport Requirement to Accommodate
· C-111 and D-111 Aircraft Although Minimal Forecasted Operations Does Not Justify This Alternative
The Airport's initial review of its future forecasted aircraft fleet mix should have ruled out any desired and
required improvements for C-111 and D-111 aircraft because their minimal forecasted operations do not
satisfy the financial feasibility objective required for accommodation. Furthermore, the minimal annual
forecasted itinerant operations projected for these aircraft, along with the negative financial
considerations discussed in General Deficiency Ill, do not justify the very expensive improvements
required to accommodate them.
7) The Project Description Section (1 :2) of the EIR Requires Revision for a New Preferred MPU
Alternative When it is Ultimately Recognized By the County Board of Supervisors
The public relies on its elected officials to recognize financially irresponsible programs and projects
proposed and supported by public employees compensated with taxpayer funds. Our elected officials
must recognize the need for revised decisions based on accurate information and data being provided.
8) Environmental Impacts and Necessary Mitigation Associated with the Proposed Relocation and
Extension of Runway 06-24 on Multiple Impacted Residential Communities Must Be Considered
Consistent with item i), th~ EIR does not properly consider and address important potential flight
noise and air quality impacts to surrounding residential communities from relocating and extending
runway 06-24., as required by CEQA Related air quality and related environmental considerations from
aircraft fumes and engine solvents being released must also be considered. Once again, the Airport has
completely disregarded, or not properly addressed, the important concerns, information and potentially
significant environmental impacts previously communicated in 281 pages of public comments received
relating to these matters. The Airport is also aware of more than 227 pages of additional public
comments received from 3 public meetings held in connection with the preparation of its 2006 Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program Agreement with the FAA (the "NCP") that relate to these matters and must
· be considered and addressed s required-by:CEQA. :_· ,.._._ .. -
Surrounding residential neighborhoods (with hundreds of homes immediately north of the Airport)
are significantly negatively impacted by pilots operating loud piston-propeller small aircraft who regularly
and continuously disregard the Airport's current recommended air traffic pattern altitudes,
voluntary noise abatement procedures and programs (VNAPs), recommended departure tracks
and procedures, and aircraft training policies and procedures wjthoyt consequence. These
residential neighborhoods will be negatively impacted even further by the Airport's runway relocation and
extension plans.
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 7 of 10 ·
9) Public Comments Submitted in Response to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (281 Pages)
Were Not Properly Considered and Evaluated in the EIR
Section 1.6.1 of the EIR, "Notice of Preparation", simply refers to a copy of the Notice of Preparation and
public comments with no further discussion or consideration of the large volume of significant
important public comments received. See the discussion of general deficiencies above, section II, for
a further discussion of related matters and issues affecting the EIR .
10) The EIR Has Not Been Prepared in Compliance with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines
The EIR has not been prepared in compliance with CEQA guidelines. As communicated previously
and hereafter, the EIR has many significant deficiencies, and therefore has not been prepared with a
sufficient degree of proper analysis to provide decision makers accurate information enabling them to
make decisions that intelligibly take account of environmental consequences of the Airport's MPU
projects. Currently, the Airport's EIR is inadequate, incomplete, and it significantly lacks a good faith
effort at full disclosure of potential environmental impacts and considerations.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT RELATED MATTERS IMPACTING THE AIRPORT'S EIR
I. The Airport's Noise Impact Technical Report {the "Noise Report" -See NOP/IS Appendix D) Was
Not Prepared Using Accurate Assumptions, Sufficient Parameters, Accurate and Complete
Information and Data, and Properly Considering Important Public Comments Received
·The Airport's Noise Impact Technical Report was prepared using inaccurate assumptions,
insufficient parameters, and inaccurate and incomplete information and data. As a result, the Noise
Report does not accurately describe and assess current and forecasted long-term no ise conditions and
potential aircraft noise impacts associated with the Airport' MPUP.
1) Preparers of the Airport's Noise Report improperly and excessively relied on the Airport's
outdated and inaccurate Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Agreement (including related noise
exposure maps and other information) to prepare their report.
Other inaccurate Airport operational information (discussed below) was also improperly relied on without
being properly tested and validated. Moreover, hundreds of pages of important public comments
received in connection with the Airport's NOP/IS and FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP)
Agreement were not properly cons.idered and utilized.
· As a result, the Airport and its consultants continue to perpetuate an inaccurate and incomplete
environmental assessment of significant noise and hazardous materials impacts affecting
residential and other land uses in the vicinity of the Airport. For example, the responsible parties
have improperly determined the closest and only impacted noise sensitive residential land use is Bressi
Ranch, a residential development located southeast of the Airport. This assertion is unfounded, and it is
contradicted by a thorough reading of the hundreds of pages of public comments received from the
residents residing within the Airport's northern noise influence area. In fact the noise sensitive residential
land uses most significantly impacted by the Airport's flight operations are those unrecognized
residential developments immediately north of the airport within 1 to 2 miles of the departure point of
runway 06-24 (e.g. Evans Point and numerous other adjacent residential developments).
I ' ' 1•
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 8 of 10
The residential developments immediately north of the Airport are the most significantly impacted
land uses because they receive the "full noise impact" from all Piston-Propeller and other aircraft
departing the Airport using runway 06-24. Furthermore, Piston-Propeller aircraft using this runway
require full engine power during their ascent, and immediately turn hard right, proceeding directly over
these northern neighborhoods. The cumulative noise levels from these Piston-Propeller aircraft are also
significant because these aircraft are loud and slow, and they can be heard departing the Airport, and
coming and going from miles around. These operations also include significant touch-and-go operations
referred to in the Airport's NiTR.
Many of these residential developments were built in the 1990s, but the Airport failed to properly
recognize them as significantly impacted noise land uses during 2003-2006 when its Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Agreement with the FAA was prepared and updated (see also
discussion of additional Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program information following this section).
2) Preparers of the Airport's Noise Report did not properly test and validate the outdated Airport
noise contours used to prepare their report. ·
Outdated Airport noise contour information has been improperly carried forward for years from one noise
report to another without proper validation testing being performed, and without necessary updates being
recognized and proposed. Although an evaluation of certain data was purported to have been performed ,
the results of the Noise Report do not support a thorough evaluation with related sufficient testing and
proper validation of underlying data.
For example, sufficient significant aircraft noise information produced by the Airport's two remaining noise
monitoring stations (and its related Noise and Operations Monitoring System software ("ANOMS")) was
not obtained and utilized by the preparers of the Airport's noise reports. This fact is troubling, and it was
acknowledged by the Airport during its February 2018 public EIR meeting. Moreover, noise program
presentation materials from the meeting clearly state, "New Master Plan noise analysis and noise
contours were not developed from the two remaining noise monitoring stations".
The Airport is aware that current proper Airport noise contours should encompass the entire touch-and-go
patterns of Piston-Propeller aircraft. The Airport receives hundreds of complaints each year relating to
these operations. In addition, these aircraft currently completely disregard the Airport's VNAPs, and
regularly fly low patterns over the many impacted residential land uses that have not been properly
recognized fo date: Moreover,· Piston-Propeller"aircraft are loud, slow, low-flying, and they produce CNEL
readings at or above 65 CNEL throughout their touch-and-go their flight routes over these residential land
uses. Based on Table 2 of the Noise Report, these Piston-Propeller aircraft also generate 108,133
operations per year, or approximately 300 operations per day. Proper Airport noise contours should also
include tested and validated B-11 jet and multi-propeller aircraft departure and arrival corridors, as
specified by the FAA.
3) Preparers of the Airport's Noise Report did not properly test and validate the outdated Airport
CNEL Information used to prepare t.heir report.
. . .
Similar to the deficiencies noted above regarding the improper testing and validation the Airport's
outdated noise contours, the preparers of the Airport's Noise Report improperly relied on outdated and
inaccurate Airport Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") information to derive current important
CNEL information for their report. Moreover, they did not properly test, validate and determine proper
accurate current CNEL information, measurements and areas necessary for compliance with CEQA.
) . ''
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 9 of 10
The Airport's two functioning noise monitoring systems collect the most meaningful noise data and
information available to quantify noise problems and matters in surrounding neighborhoods, but the noise
analysis, noise contours and CNELs were not developed considering this very important and significant
data and information. The Airport is also supposed to have four functioning noise systems operating and
producing ANOMS information strategically located around the Airport in known aircraft flight paths
suspected to be within CNEL 60 noise contours, but it still only has two functioning systems.
The Airport's consultants should understand meaningful CNEL aircraft noise data and information can
only be collected directly from specialized noise monitoring equipment. Furthermore, they should have
access to portable noise monitoring equipment to properly test, determine and validate critical Airport
noise contour and CNEL information .
. The Airport's ANOMS system produces multiple noise reports for noise events. These reports include
single noise event measurements (e.g . SEL(dB), LMax(dB)) exceeding CNEL(65dB) produced by the two
functioning Airport noise monitoring stations from which CNEL(dB) measurements can be validated.
There were over 500 single noise events exceeding 65d8 in January 2018, and over 430 single noise
events exceeding 65dB in February 2018. Additionally, an ANOMS report providing "Average Aircraft
Noise Levels" supports the assertion that the "Mean SEL" and "Max SEL" readings for Piston-Propeller
aircraft are very closely comparable with larger aircraft. Moreover, the number of touch-and-go
operations is also very high supporting the need for revised Airport noise contours encompassing the
entire touch-and-go patterns of Piston-Propeller aircraft currently using the Airport.
II. The Airport's Current FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Agreement with the
FAA Was Prepared Using Outdated Information and Data, and Important Public Comments Were
Not Considered
The Airport's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Agreement with the FAA was
prepared using outdated and inaccurate information and data, and important public comments
submitted were not properly considered and addressed in the NCP. In addition, the NCP contains
significant inaccuracies from outdated information being carried forward from prior years that was not
properly validated, corrected and revised when the NCP was prepared in 2006. Over 227 pages of public
comments arid concerns previously received by the Airport were also not properly recognized. considered
and included in the NCP. As a result, the NCP does not properly address many important noise impacts
and recommendations tha_t should have been addressed previously.
For example, the NCP fails to report accurate information regarding neighboring residential
communities surrounding the Airport that were significantly negatively impacted by Airport noise
at the time it was prepared (particularly by loud low-flying piston-prop aircraft performing touch-
and-go operations and flying directly over these existing communities). Other significant inaccurate
information in the NCP includes maps, figures and tables carried forward from before 1995. Similarly,
most of this information in the NCP appears to have been simply carried forward from the Airport's
· previous 1992 NCP without 'p'roper correction arid revision, and without considering new potential Airport
environmental impacts.
Significant Airport noise impacts to numerous existing residential neighborhood communities
north of the Airport, and within the immediate vicinity of the Airport, were also simply omitted
from being considered at all. Accordingly, accurate Airport operational information was not properly
included and considered in the NCP, and communicated to the FAA for approval.
' .
March 16, 2018
Ms. Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airports Division
Page 10 of 10
Existing noise abatement measures and voluntary noise abatement procedures (VNAP) that
should have been considered and revised with FAA assistance and guidance were also not
· addressed. These include revised and updated air traffic patterns and altitudes, voluntary noise
abatement procedures and programs (VNAPs), aircraft training policies and procedures, and departure
track and procedure revisions.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 150, Noise Compatibility Planning, was not complied with. As
a result, meaningful and effective airport operator noise compatibility recommendations were not
communicated to the FAA for consideration and approval, and the Airport's current noise abatement
programs and procedures are completely ineffective.
The Airport's current FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Agreement with the FAA should be
comprehensively updated before the current Master Plan Update Process is completed to ensure all
potential environmental impacts associated with the Airport's Master Plan Update are properly considered
in accordance with CEQA. The current NCP is also over eleven (11) years old, and a new NCP is
needed to recognize and mitigate significant environmental concerns and considerations previously
communicated to the Airport by the general public that have never been properly recognized and
addressed.
Please properly consider and address these public comments to the Airport's Draft Program
Environmenta.l Impact Report as CEQA requires. Than.k you for your assistance. Sincerely,
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
cc:
Mr. Mark McClardy, Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Airports Division, Western Pacific Region
Mr. Olivier Brackett
Airport Manager
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
San Diego County
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Carlsbad City Council
Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Jason Haber, Assistant to City Manager
Ray & Ellen Bender
All Receive -Agenda Item # 3
For the Information of the:
C~COUNOL /
ACM CA /cc /
Date?~ZJ CM V coo_
July 31, 2018 Carlsbad City Council Item 3 entitled: "City Comments on
Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report"
Friday, July 27, 2018 [2018 Bender Comments on Carlsbad PEIR Recirculation Comments]
Thank you for circulating the City's proposed 7 pages of comments1 to the county's
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan draft programmatic EIR recirculation (RPEIR).
To the extent the city commented, the comments were very good. But Carlsbad failed to
comment on several RPEIR parts. By not commenting, City waives its right to raise
these issues if a lawsuit results.
We write to encourage Carlsbad to expand its comments. Expanded comments will allow
Carlsbad to best protect the rights of the Carlsbad community.
Recall that the consistent theme in the California CEQA cases is that public comments
are meaningful only if (i) they identify a county non-compliance with the law or (ii) they
place enough evidence in the record to rebut the county's claim that "substantial
evidence" supports the county view. In short, "kvetching" may be politically popular but
is insufficient to motivate county to substantively revise its RPEIR.
1. County Section 2.2 -Biological Resources
Bender Comment on Carlsbad Proposed Comments: Excellent
2. County Revised Section 3.1.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Bender Comment on Carlsbad Proposed Comments: Needs Improvement.
• Landfill: Carlsbad does not discuss methane gas emissions that will result
when -over a 6 to 9 month period -county will drill hundreds of deep
holes through the landfill for the runway extension. Methane gases
contribute disproportionately to GHG emissions as set forth in the
standard GHG calculation formula. County's extensive landfill drilling as
well as having to shut down its existing methane gas collection system for
an extended time needs to be analyzed. County's RPEIR refuses to do
that. Carlsbad's silence on this issue implies ''No big deal." Why?
• A Proper GHG Analysis: No doubt Carlsbad's introductory comment in
its Section II (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, Revised Draft PEIR,
Section 3.15) is accurate, namely, "[County's} revised section still
appears to use an improper baseline, improper thresholds of significance,
and improper calculation methodologies. If these errors were corrected,
1 Carlsbad substantive comments are at pp. 4 to 10-otthe City report for its July 31 Agenda packet.
1
it appears that impacts would be significant and mitigation would be
required.
Similarly, Carlsbad's follow up more specific GHG comments are on
point. But any judge or the county Board of Supervisors (BOS) looking at
county's GHG analysis and Carlsbad's comments is likely going to want a
simple, more focused analysis and solution. Carlsbad's law firm Kaplan,
Kirsch, and Rockwell should be especially able to add comments.
Foreseeable court or county BOS questions include:
>" Proper Analysis Example. Provide a specific 'example of a U.S.
Airport (preferably California airport) EIR which properly analyzed
GHG emissions and mitigations.
>" California Law Compliance. Has county failed to comply with specific
California GHG requirements? If so, which ones and why.
>" Recirculation. Are county's GHG failures so basic and continuing that
county must again recirculate its GHG analysis? Why or why not?
>" County FAA Analysis Compliance. Has county failed to meet the FAA
Master Plan and/or Environmental and/or Community Involvement by
its "improper baseline, threshold, and calculation methodologies." If
so, what are the consequences? Should the Carlsbad Council be
inviting an FAA environmental expert to speak at a council meeting to
explain the FAA position on GHG analysis?
>" Statement of Overriding Considerations. As you know, governmental
entities typically conclude EIRs with a statement saying that project
benefits are too important to forego the project and no added
mitigation is feasible or necessary. Carlsbad needs to address whether
that standard mantra applies to California GHG requirements.
• Mitigation: If aircraft emissions contribute significant GHGs, are any
measures available to the county (a local entity), to reduce such emissions -
for instance by limiting takeoff intervals?2 Recall that an incidental of
increasing takeoff intervals is to reduce noise because the FAA tower has less
incentive to direct aircraft off the designated but voluntary VNAP flight paths.
3. County Revised§ 3.1.10 Energy Use and Consumption
Bender Comment on Proposed Carlsbad Comment: Needs Improvement
• Baseline Terminology. We understand the term "existing baseline" to have
two different meanings in California courts. First, "existing" means: What is it
2 For instance the 1978 Airport Deregulation Act proprietary exemption and the Clean Air Act provisions
allowing California more lee way in clean air regulation.
2
today. Second, "existing" means, what is it twenty years from now under a
"No Project" altemative.3 We suspect that county's reply to the current
Carlsbad recirculation comments would simply be: We compared emissions
with no new project against selected projects AND that is proper?
Presumably, county's error is that it omits data for the "No project" alternative
and that constitutes a prejudgment of the project to be selected.
I
• Palomar RPEIR Fuel Use Numbers v. Actual Palomar Fuel Use Numbers.
Carlsbad does not make this comparison, though the information is readily
available. Adding this information further shows the incorrect county data
and need to recirculate its GHG analysis.
4. County Revised RPZ Figures
Bender Comment on Carlsbad Proposed Comment: A Carlsbad Failure.
Carlsbad's failure to address the size, location, and orientation of existing and
future Runway Protection Zones (RP Zs) is especially disappointing for the
following reasons:
• The "AL UC/Durkin/Lamb" Issue. Several months ago, Carlsbad businessmen
( "Durkin" and Lamb) appeared before the Carlsbad City Council to request a
zone variance due to the adverse impact of SDCRAA Airport Land Use
Commission restrictions on their property. Carlsbad denied the request. The
businessmen pointed out that they were not aware of the ALUC restrictions
until after they built an office building and that their first class office building
in or near the Palomar RPZ was now restricted to uses far less valuable than
when it was constructed.
• Lack of Carlsbad Notice and Discussion. It is not surprising that Carlsbad
business persons are unaware of ALUC restrictions when (i) Carlsbad does
not even comment on a county120-year Palomar Master Plan runway
extension and a change in the RPZs and (ii) (apparently) neither Carlsbad nor
the ALUC gives actual notice to impacted property owners of changes to the
RPZ and related AL UC-designated safety zones that impose restrictions on
Carlsbad properties.
• County RPEIR RPZ Errors. County's RPZ drawings are rife with confusion
mistakes, and consequences including the proper PMP project alt. KKZ is
especially well equipped to comment on the RPZs.
3 Numbers illµstrate the point well. Today Palomar has about 155,000 annual operations. Without any
county project [that is, no runway extension and no EMAS], operations may grow to 188,000. Finally,
county claims its operations will grow to only 208,000 with the runway extension. Hence, county's
position would be: Our project ~i)l cause only 20,000 annual flights? So what's the big deal?
3
Atf '"1@tefw! � Agt-ndlJ llem # �
For thf! Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM v CA .,/"',�
Datf! l· :!>O��M / COO i,/
To: City Council, City Attorney, Carlsbad City Clerk and Jason Haber
Sent Via: email
From: Graham R. Thorley
Subject: Comment to be included in City Council July 31 2018 Packet
July30, 2018
Let me first state, unlike we have been led to believe by the County's next McClellan
Palomar Airport (CRQ) Master Plan (MP):
1.The FAA in not yet a party to the next MP and should not be part of any discussion
of the MP.
2.There is NO FAA requirement that an airport MUST expand if 500 Operations or
more of a certain Class of Aircraft is achieved, ONLY a recommendation.
Therefore, it must be assumed the MP preferred Option 5 to expand the runway is
because the County feels it can turn a money losing operation into a profitable operation
at the expense of the airport surrounding communities citizens health, quality of life and
property values. See the attached "Same Story But Different Zip Code.PDF to see what will
happen to the airport surrounding communities if the County is successful in extending
CRQ's runway.
The County and Carlsbad's fiduciary responsibility IS to FIRST protect ALL of its citizens.
That said and based on KKR's recently successful and continuing law suits around the
country, I am confident if we do not stop the airport expansion, KKR will be back here in
five (5) years representing Carlsbad and its surrounding communities in aircraft noise
impact on their communities as in LA, Orange County, Phoenix, Baltimore and Washington
DC.
With ALL the above and years of predicting what an expanded airport and its surrounding
communities future will become and now ALL well documented in front page articles
around the country confirming my predictions, I do not understand WHY Carlsbad City
Council is continuing to:
1.Ignore the facts
2.Refusing to allow its staff to meet with well informed citizens on the reality of
expanding airports
3.NOT doing whatever is necessary to prevent the airport expansion.
FACT -after hundreds of hours meeting with the County and studying its new Airport
Master Plan, the best thing I can say is it less than truthful or as you have read many time
before,
Half a truth is often a great lie
-Benjamin Franklin -
Here are just a few examples of the County's half-truths or omissions:
1. The County states:
''lt is important to note the Master Plan is only applicable to what the county is
proposing and what the county has the ability to control, for example, flight
patterns and NexGEN ... are not items the County can control and the Master
Plan would not impact those operations. "
That is absolutely correct, BUT begs the questions:
a. With all the lawsuits around the country over the increasing aircraft noise
created by NexGEN, why is the County even considering expanding the
airport that will destroy its citizens quality of life and health.
b. More importantly with the fact no longer in dispute, WHY is Carlsbad not
aggressively protecting its citizens quality of life, health and property values?
c. The County's Airport Master Plan is already OBSOLETE AND the Extended
runway is no longer needed or will still not allow G650ER to fly non-stop to
China:
1. California Pacific Airlines states it does not need a longer runway
11. Delta Airline's new Airbus A200 (133 passenger) Regional Jet does not
need it
111. SkyWest new Mitsubishi RJ 76 passenger Regional Jet does not need
it
Iv. Per Page 4-13 Table 4.10 of the Master Plan, it states a QUALCOMM's
G650ER@ MTOW needs a 6,500 foot runway to fly to China. OOOPS
the extended runway is approximately 603 feet too short.
2. Never mentioned within the next 5 years, the Hyperloop r1J and fully autonomous
self-driving cars [Zl will make a "Paradigm Shift" in ground transportation. This shift
that has been projected to negatively impact Regional Airport Transportation.
What this means -NO more sitting in freeway traffic for an hour or more going to
SAN Airport. Hyperloop -Carlsbad and San Diego 9 minutes
3. Then there is the traffic impact to Carlsbad and its future plans for its new City Hall.
The BIG Picture:
a. El Camino and Palomar Airport Road is already reported as being classified
as a FAILED intersection.
b. Commercial Airport Traffic projections 2.6 Million more vehicle trips, BUT,
there is no projection in the Master Plan for the increase from private jet
services. Today there is no reporting on that number and no plans to report
that number in the future. Therefore, Carlsbad receives no tax benefit from
those passengers.
c. Viasat 3,000 employees' unknown traffic issues
d. New Bressi Ranch high volume shopping center and townhomes traffic
Page 2 of 3
e. New DR Horton Home Development on Palomar Airport Road
ALL will turn a FAILED intersection into nothing but total gridlock. The same
gridlock traffic conditions that is constantly being reported around San Diego
International.
With continuing gridlock on this intersection --:--two of the four future City
Hall/Civic Center locations will need to be deleted from consideration. The Gridlock
will make it difficult for Carlsbad citizens to access these City Hall/Civic Center
locations.
Therefore, I implore you to stop this expansion before it is too late.
Thank you,
Graham R. Thorley
P.S. As I stated in the June 2018 Airport Workshop -United States Supreme Court
Assistant Justice Antonin Scalia stated when asked what is most important when he
makes his rulings, his answer was:
"The meaning of the words." It's what those words meant at the time as
opposed to the meaning of today.
Additionally, in listing to the successful appeal discussion of both the
Phoenix and Santa Monica cases against the FAA, Justice Scalia's words were
center to all the justice's questions.
Bottom-line, no matter what the County claims, it ALL comes down to what
the words meant to the citizens at the time of passing CUP 172 and
Ordinance 21.53.015 were created and passed.
Enclosure:
References
Notes
Same Story But
Different Zip Code.pd
1. See SaveCarlsbad.com for all the details
2. See SaveCarlsbad.com for all the details
Page 3 of 3
Same Story But Different Zip Code
Shared Story from San Diego Air Route Forum ·
July 28, 2018
From LA Times October 22. 2017 5:00AM
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-ln-airplane-noise-20171022-story.html#share=email-story
'It's a superhighway above our heads': South
L.A. residents vexed by new LAX flight paths
A jet descends into Los Angeles International Airport. New flight paths into LAX,
redrawn by the FAA to save fuel and reduce delays, have triggered complaints
from once tranquil South L.A. neighborhoods. (David McNew / Getty Images)
mi]y A.IJKrt RcvcsContnct Rn:tPrter
Thousands of people come every year to meditate and reflect at the Peace Awareness
Labyrinth and Gardens, a South L.A. center that dubs itself "a spiritual oasis in the city."
But,this year, the tranquility of its green gardens and burbling fountains has been, broken
by a new and unwelcome sound: the repeated drone of passing jets and airplanes, often
only minutes apart
The noise has awoken and aggravated nearby residents, disrupted film shoots at the
gardens and elsewhere, and spurred demands from 1-ocal lawmakers for action.
And it hasn't made it any easier to find inner peace.
"The other day it sounded like an airplane was coming down on the roof," said Valerie
Zumwalt, a student at the Jefferson Park seminary on the site.
Jefferson Park, West Adams and other stretches of South L.A. along Adams Boulevard are
some of the neighborhoods affected by a shift in flight paths into Los Angeles
International Airport and other busy airports across the nation, part of a federal effort to
save fuel, reduce delays and improve safety. But by funneling air traffic into narrower,
more concentrated routes, the new system has sent a steady stream of jets roaring over
once-tranquil communities, residents said.
The rollout of the new system, known as the Southern California Metroplex, has drawn
lawsuits from Newport Beach, Culver City and other cities. The changed routes in Southern
California are part of a larger Federal Aviation Administration modernization program
called NextGen, which has drawn complaints from Northern Ca li fornia to Maryland.
New flight paths concentrate noise
These maps provided by ~os Angeles World Airports show1the change in flight
traffic over West Adams from November 2016 to May 2017.
November 2016
8"1/erfy Hills
' ? f'Yoo .... ,., ... ,.
"'
' \ '
..,,..
-fffght paths. • \, .. ,..-~
L.A. TlmH Gr.1.ptucs
_.,,,., ~-;: . '
·~· .....
May. 2017
Be-vf'rtyHilft
-·-·
. ;-~·· ,.. Fligl1t paths ... ' --,Joo~ ..• .,, '
Source: Los Angeles World Airports
..,. .. _,. ,., i ~----'
! ...
\ ! !
"
' i .
\
, .. t"
',
'\
Los~les~ J . · ~
1
In Los Angeles, the redrawn routes have brought a torrent of complaints from South L.A.
neighborhoods where skies were typically quiet. The busiest part of the flight path has
shifted northward -and grown more concentrated. Since the latest changes were
implemented in April, some residents say they hear passing planes every few minutes.
"They know exactly where planes are ... which increases safety. But for those people who
live under that flight track, it increases misery on the ground," said Jacqueline Hamilton,
senior counsel to U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D -Los Angeles), at a recent community forum.
Last month, there were more than 5,700 noise complaints in ZIP codes from West Adams
to University Park -an area that had only a single complaint the previous September.
Visitors walk the labyrinth at Peace Awareness Labyrinth and Gardens in the West Adams
neighborhood of South Los Angeles, where people complain of increased jet and airplane
noise. (Christina House/ Los Angeles Times)
Amy Carnes was among the hundreds who packed Holman United Methodist Church in
Jefferson Park on a recent Saturday to express their frustration.
Carnes said the noise frequently kept her from going outside and playing with her kids.
Her husband, Joel, said in a later interview that he had been repeatedly jolted out of his
sleep at night, like "some sort of Gitmo sleep deprivation study," referring to the
Guantanamo Bay military prison. They have started to w'eigh whether to move out of
their 25th Street home. -
"We had no idea that this was coming at us," she said. "It's a superhighway above our
heads."
1
Amy Carnes, shares her concerns about pollutants that rain down from planes along its
flight path during the, "Quiet Skies," meeting t H(?lman United Methodist Church. (Genaro
Molina/ Los ,'.\ngeles.Times)
Ryan Andrus, who lives a few blocks from the church, lodges noise complaints daily on an
airport website. He likened the sound to "a neighbor starting up a leaf blower, running it
for 30 seconds, and doing that every three minutes for the rest of your life."
C
Under FAA procedures that accompanied the new system, airplanes are nof supposed to
dip below minimum altitudes at a string of "waypoints" as they descend toward LAX. In the
past, there were no such altitude restrictions as planes descended over South L.A. east of
Santa Monica, according to the FAA.
But local lawmakers say that airplanes are flying much lower than they are supposed to,
exacerbating the problem for those who liv~ below.
"This has nothing to do with the pilots -they follow the instructions of air traffic control,"
said Denny Schneider, chairman of the LAX Community Noise Roundtable, a volunteer
group that has repeatedly raised concerns abou-t noise from low-flying planes. "It's all up
to the FAA to do this."
(
Flight ·altitudes over West Adams
Two-thirds of LAX-bound flights passing through the West Adams waypoint
In July were below the FAA's minimum altitude of 6,000 feet.
1.aoq feet I <l% or higher
6,000 to 7,000 32.5%
............................................................................................ ,. ..................... · · minimurrr
5,000 to 6,000 altitude 60%
4,000 to 5,000 6.1%
4,000 or lower I <1%
Source: Los Angeles World Airports \ Joe Fox/@latimesgraphics
Flight data provided by Los Angeles World Airports show that in July, 67% of incoming
airplanes were flying lower than the minimum altitude Qf 6,000 feet at a West Adams
waypoint Though many planes had flown under that altitude in the past they used to be
spread out over a much wider path. In a recent letter to the FAA, L.A. City Council members
. Herb Wesson, Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Mike Bonin said the federal agency needed·
to start following its own rules.
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor declined to comment specifically about concerns over noise
and flight altitudes. Last year, the agency declared that the Southern California Metroplex
r "would not result in significant noise impacts or reportable noise increases."
',
Those findings have been challenged in court by Newport Beach and Culver City, and Uthe
parties are currently participating in a confidential, court-ordered mediation," Gregor wrote
in an email.
"The FAA is focused on identifying and exploring common ground that may address the
I petitioners' concerns, while being mindful that airspace an_d air traffic procedures are
highly dependent upon each other within the National Airspace System, and must be
evaluated collectively to ensure safety and efficiency," Gregor added.
•Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), addresses\a recent forum at Holman United Methodist
Church. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
The agency sa ys it held nearly a dozen public workshops about the planned changes after
it released its draft environmental assessment of the project two years ago and organized
do:Zeris of briefings for community groups and officials. In a video about the new system, it
indicated that jets and airplanes might diverge from the Metroplex routes -and their
assigned altitudes -due to weather and air traffic.
In a letter to the FAA, Schneider noted that planes are routinely flying low over West
L Adams at night, when there are far fewer flights and "n_o possible excuse" for not flying at a
higher altitude. The FAA has proposed adding a new 6,000-foot minimum altitude
requirement for a waypoint further east in South L.A., but residents are dubious it will help.
City officials have stressed that they have little power over the problem. "We are .
handcuffed in the city of Los Angeles," Mayor Eri c Garcetti told KABC 7 earlier this year.
"We don't have power over flight paths ... that's something that's just in the federal
jurisdiction."
Garcetti spokesman Alex Comisar said that community concerns are being relayed to the
FAA, and the mayor "will continue dqing everything he can to help make their voices
heard."
Andrus and other residents argue that L.A. could join other cities that have taken the FAA
to court. At the meeting at Holman United Methodist Church, Wesson and Harris-Dawson
said they were open to the idea, although Wesson spokeswoman Caolinn Mejza later
added it was "not our .ideal solution."
But even a court victory may nbt guarantee swift action. In Arizona, Phoenix successfully
sued over the changes to the flight paths but was given no estimate for when they might
change. West Adams resident Michael Salman pointed out that in the San Francisco Bay
Area, residents have spurred the FAA to reexamine flight paths without even going to
court.
In Arizona, "they're going back to square one -to argue about what the procedures
should be," Salman said. "Why not just start there to begin with?"
Ryan Andrus walks his dog Carl in their West Adams neighborhood. He likened the sound
to "a neighbor starting up a leaf blower, running it for 30 seconds, and doing that every
three minutes for the rest of your life." (Christina House/ Los Angeles Times)
emily.alpert@latimes.com
Twitter: @LATimes'Emily
Faviola Medina
From: City Clerk
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 7:41 AM
Faviola Medina
Subject: FW: Airport Noise - I am tired of the citizen complaints and have a different opinion
FYI
Thank you,
Tammy-
From: Jason Haber
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 6:07 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Airport Noise - I am tired of the citizen complaints and have a different opinion
For the record ...
Jason Haber
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Carlsbad
From: Scott Chadwick
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Airport Noise - I am tired of the citizen complaints and have a different opinion
Scott Chadwick
Chief Operations Officer
City of Carlsbad
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Sterling C.Johnson"
Date: July 30, 2018 at 4:45:11 PM PDT
To: <scott.chadwick@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport Noise - I am tired of the citizen complaints and have a different opinion
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a little tired of the "noise" and false statements circulated by those who are concerned about the
Carlsbad Airport noise and potential expansion. I have lived in the Aviara neighborhood of Carlsbad for
17 years and love it. The noise caused by airplanes is minimal. Noise was far worse than Carlsbad on my
family farm in Northern California during the 19S0's. So what if we have a few planes making some noise
1
from time to time. Personally, I miss taking flights to LAX to connect to the rest of the world. The I 5
traffic makes getting to San Diego and other airports a health and safety hazard for us all.
Bottom line: Let's expand and grow and use our brains and figure out how to accommodate some air
traffic.
Respectfully,
Sterling C. Johnson
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Sterling C. Johnson
2
Faviola Medina
From: City Clerk
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:41 AM
Faviola Medina
Subject: FW: Airport Noise -The Complainers Are TOO NOISY
fyi
Thank you,
Tammy-
From: Council Internet Email
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:24 AM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Airport Noise - The Complainers Are TOO NOISY
This email came in after the deadline.
From: Sterling C. Johnson
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 4:43 PM
To: PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov
Cc: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Airport Noise - The Complainers Are TOO NOISY
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a little tired of the "noise" and false statements circulated by those who are concerned about the Carlsbad Airport
noise and potential expansion. I have lived in the Aviara neighborhood of Carlsbad for 17 years and love it. The noise
caused by airplanes is minimal. Noise was far worse than Carlsbad on my family farm in Northern California during the
1950's. So what if we have a few planes making some noise from time to time. Personally, I miss taking flights to LAX to
connect to the rest of the world. The I 5 traffic makes getting to San Diego and other airports a health and safety hazard
for us all.
Bottom line: Let's expand and grow and use our brains and figure out how to accommodate some air traffic.
Respectfully,
Sterling C. Johnson
Carlsbad, CA 92011
1
1
To: Carlsbad City Council
Kevin Crawford/ Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Assistant to City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
From: Ray & Ellen Bender
Re: July 31, 2018 Carlsbad City Council Item 3 entitled: “City Comments on
Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report” – Post-Council Meeting Comments [Double-Sided Pages]
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 [2018 Bender Supplemental Comments on Carlsbad PEIR Recirculation Comments]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this morning’s (July 31, 2018) Carlsbad City Council meeting. Several issues arose as council members were voting related to the
Carlsbad letter to the county commenting on McClellan-Palomar Master Plan issues. So
that the administrative record is complete, here are a few more thoughts.1
1. Council Question #1: Are the City’s comments to the county the last chance to comment on proposed Palomar projects?
Answer #1A: KKR Response. Although county’s individual projects may require
future CEQA assessment, as a practical matter, such assessment is likely to be quite
limited and 2018 is effectively the last real chance to shape county’s projects.
Answer #1B: Bender Supplemental Comment. We agree with KKR’s comments –
as far as it goes. Beyond that, understand that the council question incompletely
describes the county Palomar Master Plan (PMP) “PROJECT”.
The PROJECT is NOT to simply install EMAS safety systems and extend and
relocate the Palomar runway. County’s expressly stated purpose is two-fold. First, to
carry out these projects. Second, to convert Palomar Airport from an FAA-rated B-II
airport to an FAA-rated D-III airport.
If county adopts a twenty-year plan to accomplish BOTH objectives, county has
committed to a D-III airport, which means many more future larger and faster aircraft
using Palomar. CEQA requires FUTURE review of individual construction projects.
It does NOT require review of a Board of Supervisor 2018 decision to convert
Palomar to a larger D-III airport.
1 We paraphrase our recollection of the issues discussed. Apologies to the council, KKR, and staff if their
recollection of the issues differs from ours. Our detailed 60+ pages of comments on the county’s Recirculated Partial PEIR will be filed on Monday, August 6, 2018, and we will provide a copy to Carlsbad
– as well as to the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Land Use Commission and to the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics.
2
In short, 2018 is the last Carlsbad council opportunity to effectively shape Palomar
development and the air, biological, noise, traffic, and water quality impacts on
Carlsbad residents. The Council needs to get it right.
2. Council Question #2: Does Mr. Bender have a point that – although the county could normally follow the standard governmental practice of simply adopting a
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations to avoid correcting Palomar Airport
Impacts – Carlsbad should independently review whether county is complying with
State Greenhouse Gas laws and regulations? Answer 2A: KKR Response. We have discussed GHG issues with other attorneys.
We are not yet aware of a California GHG law that county might violate.
Answer 2B: Bender Supplemental Comment.
• California GHG Legal Requirements. We take a simple view.
o State GHG laws and regs collectively say that each entity in California
must reduce GHGs within its borders (and especially from the operations the entity itself conducts, like an airport) by a certain
percent by a certain date.
o Each entity must assess GHG requirements by a logical and reasonable
“evidence-based” process.
o County’s PMP PEIR GHG mitigation measures simply say: We’ll
build green buildings and have our employees drive “green cars.”
• Our non-legal argument of course would be: Are you serious that the county is meeting the State-mandated GHG requirements by the process the county has
followed? And no, there is neither legal nor factual basis for adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations on GHG issues.
• We invite county and KKR to translate common sense into legalese.2 As we
recall, the word “can’t” is not part of an aggressive defense of protecting
Carlsbad resident rights.
3. Council Question 3: If there is a “Bender Statement of Overriding Consideration Issue,” should Carlsbad address it now or later?
Answer 3A: KKR Response. We don’t yet know what the county’s response
will be in the Final PMP PEIR. So it may be premature to address this issue.
2 We were pleased to see the KKR references to the five cases in its July 31, 2018 initial comments, which
we are now reviewing. No doubt, a top tier aviation law firm could do justice to the Statement of Overriding Issue if allowed to.
3
Answer 3B: Bender Supplemental Comment. We understand the concern. But
here are the two problems with the Carlsbad concern.
• Mainly a Legal Issue. First, the issue raised is mainly a legal, not factual one. Hence, County’s Final PEIR responses will be minimally relevant.
Unless county does the unthinkable and actually provides a coherent, well-
grounded analysis agreeing to meaningful GHG mitigation measures.
• Timing. County staff could well request a Board of Supervisor hearing a week after finalizing its PMP and PEIR. Speakers at the BOS meeting will
have 3 minutes to change BOS member minds.
• Conclusion: Carlsbad must request KKR to do the needed research substantially before the BOS meeting so that Carlsbad can provide a
written analysis for BOS Board members as part of their PMP/PEIR action
item.
Conclusion
If the council wants to show it is seriously considering the impacts of county’s
20-year McClellan-Palomar on Carlsbad residents, Carlsbad will act more
aggressively. As noted at the meeting, Council Member Packard’s desire to “play nice” with the
county seems to have achieved nothing over the last twenty years but:
• Ugly unlandscaped airport perimeter slopes in the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor;
• Releases of smelly aviation fuel emissions on and adjacent to the
airport resulting in a low Carlsbad EPA air quality rating;
• A county statement in its current PMP and PEIR that county need not
comply with Carlsbad planning, zoning, and policies and will not.
Please pull out Aretha Franklin’s recording of RESPECT, listen, and act accordingly.
Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager
County of San Diego
Department of Public Works
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92123
Re: Comments on Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Curtis:
I respectfully submit comments on the Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
In the County's Reader's Guide to the Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, Page 1 of 8, you discuss CEQA reasons for
recirculation of an EIR as follows:
"California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a) requires
the County to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added after public
review, but before certification. Significant new information can include changes in the
project of environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. Section
15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states:
Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure
showing that:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce impacts to a level of insignificance.
3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from
others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental
impacts of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt it.
4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5(a).
I submit that the current document produced by the County continues to be riddled with
inconsistencies, inaccuracies and simply, missed information. It clearly does not meet CEQA
requirements.
Reviewing the Recirculated Portions of Draft PEIR, I request the entire document be redrafted
with accurate, clear and concise information. As well, it must be recirculated with yet another
public comment period of a minimum of 45 days, equal to what was specified for the most
recent Redraft.
For easy reference regarding specifics, please refer to comments found in the City of Carlsbad
Comments on Recirculated Portions of Draft PEIR. The items the City of Carlsbad has listed are
numerous and should not need to be restated again here.
To be absolutely clear, the public deserves a well thought out document that is complete in
nature and not a piecemealed document which makes full analysis and public review more
challenging.
Submitted to you most sincerely,
Hope Nelson
Carlsbad Resident
To: Carlsbad City Council
Kevin Crawford/ Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Assistant to City Manager
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
From: Ray & Ellen Bender
Re: July 31, 2018 Carlsbad City Council Item 3 entitled: "City Comments on
Recirculated Portions of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report" -
Post-Council Meeting Comments [Double-Sided Pages]
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 [2018 Bender Supplemental Comments on Carlsbad PEIR Recirculation Comments]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this morning's (July 31, 2018) Carlsbad City
Council meeting. Several issues arose as council members were voting related to the
Carlsbad letter to the county commenting on McClellan-Palomar Master Plan issues. So
that the administrative record is complete, here are a few more thoughts. 1
1. Council Question #1: Are the City's comments to the county the last chance to
comment on proposed Palomar projects?
Answer #lA: KKR Response. Although county's individual projects may require
future CEQA assessment, as a practical matter, such assessment is likely to be quite
limited and 2018 is effectively the last real chance to shape county's projects.
Answer #1B: Bender Supplemental Comment. We agree with KKR's comments -
as far as it goes. Beyond that, understand that the council question incompletely
describes the county Palomar Master Plan (PMP) "PROJECT".
The PROJECT is NOT to simply install EMAS safety systems and extend and
relocate the Palomar runway. County's expressly stated purpose is two-fold. First, to
carry out these projects. Second, to convert Palomar Airport from an FAA-rated B-II
airport to an FAA-rated D-III airport.
If county adopts a twenty-year plan to accomplish BOTH objectives, county has
committed to a D-111 airport, which means many more future larger and faster aircraft
using Palomar. CEQA requires FUTURE review of individual construction projects.
It does NOT require review of a Board of Supervisor 2018 decision to convert
Palomar to a larger D-III airport.
1 We paraphrase our recollection of the issues discussed. Apologies to the council, KKR, and staff if their
recollection of the issues differs from ours. Our detailed 60+ pages of comments on the county's
Recirculated Partial PEIR will be filed on Monday, August 6, 2018, and we will provide a copy to Carlsbad
-as well as to the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Land Use Commission and to the CalTrans
Division of Aeronautics.
1
In short, 2018 is the last Carlsbad council opportunity to effectively shape Palomar
development and the air, biological, noise, traffic, and water quality impacts on
Carlsbad residents. The Council needs to get it right.
2. Council Question #2: Does Mr. Bender have a point that-although the county
could normally follow the standard governmental practice of simply adopting a
CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations to avoid correcting Palomar Airport
Impacts -Carlsbad should independently review whether county is complying with
State Greenhouse Gas laws and regulations?
Answer 2A: KKR Response. We have discussed GHG issues with other attorneys.
We are not yet aware of a California GHG law that county might violate.
Answer 2B: Bender Supplemental Comment.
• California GHG Legal Requirements. We take a simple view.
o State GHG laws and regs collectively say that each entity in California
must reduce GHGs within its borders (and especially from the
operations the entity itself conducts, like an airport) by a certain
percent by a certain date.
o Each entity must assess GHG requirements by a logical and reasonable
"evidence-based' process.
o County's PMP PEIR GHG mitigation measures simply say: We'll
build green buildings and have our employees drive "green cars."
• Our non-legal argument of course would be: Are you serious that the county is
meeting the State-mandated GHG requirements by the process the county has
followed? And no, there is neither legal nor factual basis for adopting a
Statement o,f Overriding Considerations on GHG issues.
• We invite county and KKR to translate common sense into legalese.2 As we
recall, the word "can't" is not part of an aggressive defense of protecting
Carlsbad resident rights.
3. Council Question 3: If there is a "Bender Statement of Overriding Consideration
Issue," should Carlsbad address it now or later?
Answer 3A: KKR Response. We don't yet know what the county's response
will be in the Final PMP PEIR. So it may be premature to address this issue.
2 We were pleased to see the KKR references to the five cases in its July 31, 2018 initial comments, which
we are now reviewing. No doubt, a top tier aviation law firm could do justice to the Statement of
Overriding Issu~ if allowed to.
2
Answer 3B: Bender Supplemental Comment. We understand the concern. But
here are the two problems with the Carlsbad concern.
• Mainly a Legal Issue. First, the issue raised is mainly a legal, not factual
one. Hence, County's Final PEIR responses will be minimally relevant.
Unless county does the unthinkable and actually provides a coherent, well-
grounded analysis agreeing to meaningful GHG mitigation measures.
• Timing. County staff could well request a Board of Supervisor hearing a
week after finalizing its PMP and PEIR. Speakers at the BOS meeting will
have 3 minutes to change BOS member minds.
• Conclusion: Carlsbad must request KKR to do the needed research
substantially before the BOS meeting so that Carlsbad can provide a
written analysis for BOS Board members as part of their PMP/PEIR action
item.
Conclusion
If the council wants to show it is seriously considering the impacts of county's
20-year McClellan-Palomar on Carlsbad residents, Carlsbad will act more
aggressively.
As noted at the meeting, Council Member Packard's desire to "play nice" with the
county seems to have achieved nothing over the last twenty years but:
• Ugly unlandscaped airport perimeter slopes in the Carlsbad Scenic
Corridor;
• Releases of smelly aviation fuel emissions on and adjacent to the
airport resulting in a low Carlsbad EPA air quality rating;
• A county statement in its current PMP and PEIR that county need not
comply with Carlsbad planning, zoning, and policies and will not.
Please pull out Aretha Franklin's recording of RESPECT, listen, and act
accordingly.
3
To: County of San Diego Environmental Division c/o
Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager County of San Diego
Department of Public Works
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123
From: Ray & Ellen Bender [2018 aug 5 bender recirculation comments FINAL]
Re: Bender Comments on County June 2018 Recirculated Portions of McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Programmatic EIR Due August 6, 2018
Date: August 6, 2018 Hand Delivered to County Environmental Division
Bender Comments on June 2018 County of San Diego Recirculated Portions of
County McClellan-Palomar Programmatic EIR
• General Comments: Proposed New NextGen Law. County's Reader Guide to its June 2018 Recirculated PEIR materials
says that readers may comment only on new issues, not old. However, CEQA requires the county to address new
information available before county finalizes its EIR. Accordingly, we bring to your attention the June 2018 Amendment to
Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 Proposed New Section [ 4119] related to nationwide airport compliance
with certain NextGen satellite navigation measures. If adopted into law, the Amendment will affect the approach and
glideslope of aircraft using Palomar and affect the airport's VNAP program. Address these issues in the Noise section of
the Final PEIR, which County did not recirculate in June. See the attachment at the end of this table for a draft of the
proposed law. Also, we incorporate by reference all comments of Carlsbad to county dated about July 31 to August 6, 2018.
Bender Recirculation Request (BRR) 1. Proper 20-Y ear Analysis Period. Confirm in the Final PMP and PEIR that the analysis
period covered is 2016 to 2036 even though the county documents are finalized in 2018 because:
• The last county PMP and CEQA analysis rapproved in 19971 analyzed environmental impacts ending in 2015.1
1 See all the Aviation Forecast Tables in Chapter Two ["Aviation Demand Forecast"] in the expired PMP.
1
• The PMP and PEIR county now processes repeatedly refer to analyzing environmental impacts through 2036, not 2038 .
• Accordingly, (i) comply with CEQA, which requires analyzing environmental impacts through the PMP period specified,
and (ii) comply with the government code planning and zoning provisions, which require a county plan be continuously in
force without gaps.
• If county claims the new PMP and PEIR period is 2018 to 2038, explain why these documents reference an analysis period
ending in 2036 rather than 2038 and update the missing analysis.
• Also, in the Final PEIR, explain what county general plan the county relies on when carrying out Palomar Airport projects
from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 given the Government Code constraints that county projects be consistent
with the county's adopted General Plan.
# Recircu-County Position Bender Comment
lated
pages &
sections
1 2.2 County says: "An • This PEIR change shows that county is in fact expanding Palomar Airport facilities
Biological addendum was outside its El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road Northwest parcel by making
p. 2-17 added to the BTR available by a lease to the FAA additional areas for navigational lighting on the
in May 2018 to NORTHEAST comer of ECR and PAR. As set forth in County's PMP, county estimates
evaluate impacts it will pay $8.6 million for these navigational improvements. More importantly, these
associated with improvements are needed only because county plans to extend its runway by 800-feet2
potential shifts in and relocate the runway about 120 feet to the north thereby displacing various
the FAA-Owned navigational aids currently on the northwest comer of El Camino Real and Palomar
Medium-Intensity Airport Road. All navigational aids on the northeast comer of ECR and PAR are
Approach Lighting outside the Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 area.
System (MALSR)
2 As discussed later in these comments, county's comments about a future "'800-foot" runway extension are misleading. County's so-called Palomar runway
west end Engineered Materials Arresting System [EMAS] includes an unneeded $13 million massive retaining wall to satisfy only Supervisor Hom.
2
navigational • For the above reasons, County has failed to meet CEQA EIR recirculation requirements
lighting structures because County failed to modify its project description to show the location, number,
on the Eastern and intensity of lighting and other navigational aids to be installed so that a proper
Parcel (HELIX biological assessment could be made.3
2018).
• BRR 1. In the Final PEIR, correct these omissions .
• BRR 2. County Undercounts of Biological Species Areas Affected by Navigational
Lighting. As noted below, county suggests that the $8.6 million of navigational
improvements affects only 0.3 acres ofland [13,068 square feet]. A 100-foot by 100-
foot area is 10,000 square feet. It appears that county is substantially underestimating
the area needed for the new navigational improvements and the impact area of high
intensity lights on wildlife over an area many times greater than 13,068 square feet. In
the Final PEIR, provide the following information: (1) the size of the area that the
county is leasing to the FAA to place and maintain navigational aids on the northeast
comer of ECR and PAR; (2) the number and kind of the navigational aids; (3) the
square footage "footprint" that each navigational aid will require (including
foundations) -which will show how much sensitive habitat and vegetation must be
3 The county consultant Helix May 31, 2018 letter to Cynthia Curtis [CS-05.14] provides incomplete information regarding the Palomar Eastern Parcel
navigational lights. The letter refers to a 20-foot wide by 1200-foot long maintenance access road (with apparently some laterals to each light standard). The
letter notes a light standard occurs every 200 feet and that another standard may need to be added if the runway is extended 200 feet. The letter addresses
relocating the runway north about 120 feet. The letter refers to a light standard base disturbance area of IO' by IO feet. However, the letter does not address the
2018-2038 PMP proposal to extend the runway an added 600 feet. Nor does the letter provide any evidence that the FAA would keep the light standards in their
existing location if the runway is lengthened by a total of 800 feet. Presumably, the FAA wishes to give pilots as early a warning as possible. After lengthening
the runway, early warning is especially critical because aircraft will be touching down on the Palomar runway about 200-feet from hundreds of cars on the major
arterial El Camino Real adjoining the airport -rather than touching down I 000-feet from such cars. Page 12 of the HELIX report entitled the REFERENCES
that HELIX relied on to prepare its report does not refer to any FAA communication outlining the FAA proposed relocation site for the FAA navigational lights.
The FAA might simply add more light standards to the east of the existing navigational aids. OR, if the FAA relocates all the standards to the north, the FAA
might shift all of the light standards 800-feet or more. The precise plan is critical for two reasons. First, to calculate the sensitive area impacted by construction,
the construction area must be known. Construction further east might impact more or fewer sensitive plants and animals. Second, the number of standards
determines the square foot immediately impacted as well as the length of the maintenance road and the length of the laterals from the maintenance road to each
standard. The missing HELIX report info precludes a reliable HELIX conclusions.
3
disturbed for each navigational aid; ( 4) the height of each navigational aid that includes
a light source to guide aircraft to the runway; ( 5) the number of lights and candlepower
of such lights on each navigational aid, the color of the lights, and whether the lights are
constant or blinking [relevant to showing how much light will be created that could
affect birds as reflected in FAA studies over the last 10 years]; ( 6) the total length and
width of the maintenance roads (including laterals to access each light standard) which
may impact protected vegetation and/or species; and (7) the risk to aircraft of bird
strikes caused by navigational lighting causing migratory and/or nesting birds to deviate
from their normal flight paths.4 Also, identify what bird strike avoidance mechanisms
will be installed at Palomar Airport to avoid bird strikes including but not limited to the
(i) noise emitting devices and (ii) navigational lighting tower bird "dissuaders" depicted
in the Y ouTube video noted in the footnote below. Explain the impact of these
"dissuaders" on birds. When responding, please recall that the FAA Airport Facility
Directory for Palomar [CRQ] expressly states in the airport remarks section: "Extensive
bird activity in vicinity especially in spring."
• BRR 3. County Failure to Discuss Impacts of Colored and/or Flashing
Navigational Lighting. FAA studies show that airport navigational lighting of certain
colors (red v. white v. green) and/or steadiness (fixed or flashing) impact wildlife
adversely.5 In the Final PEIR, identify the specific FAA navigational lighting criteria
4 For literature on the subject, see: (I) FAA Order 1050.1 F Desk Reference in 13.1 et seq discusses Visual effects generally and specifically requires a discussion
of such effects on biological resources; and (2) YouTube.com, "Ranger Nick: Preventing Bird Strikes At World's Busiest Airport."
5 See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/24/airport-lights-birds-faa , which states in part:
4
"' 3
FAA aims to save millions of birds by
changing static red airport lights
Federal Aviation Administration aims to stop millions of birds
dying each year by changing static red lights, which attract birds,
to Hashing lights
In an attempt to save some of the millions of birds that die each year after
being bewildered by airport illumination, changes will be made to the US
lighting towers that warn approaching pilots.
The Federal Aviation Administration said it will change the lighting on
towers across the US after its research found that birds are attracted to steady
red lights that highlight obstructions to pilots at night. The FAA said its
changes will save thousands of birds each year.
The research found that static red lights attract birds -often in large
migratory flocks -which then circle the light repeatedly, often collapsing of
exhaustion and dying on the ground. Some birds perish after hitting towers
or surrounding wires.
It's thought that constant red lights
disorientate birds far more than blue,
white or flashing lights. A 2012 study
estimated that 6.8 million birds a
year die in the US and Canada due to
this confusion -up to four times the
amount that are killed by shooting.
The FAA conducted a trial in
Michigan to compare different lights
and found a large decrease in bird
fatalities when flashing lights were
deployed. The federal regulator has
now instructed all new towers to be fitted with flashing lights, with operators
of existing towers required to transition to the new system.
5
to minimize harm to birds and include a specific mitigation measure to assure
navigational lights constructed and/or retrofitted will provide the needed protection.
State whether Palomar today has any such distracting lights and identify the program
that county will immediately implement to correct the problem.
2 2.2.1 County refers to • In 2009, County prepared a draft ordinance related to the NC MSCP. The draft provides
Biological the Draft North in part:
Resources County Multiple
Existing Species SEC. 86.513. EXEMPTIONS
Condition Conservation
s, p. 2-18 Program (NC The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this article and may
MSCP) Plan and receive Third Party Beneficiary (sic). A determination that the project is exempt
ties its analysis to must be made prior to impacts to
the plan.
DRAFT 6 February 2009
North County Plan Appendix A Biological Mitigation Ordinance
any species or natural vegetation. Projects are subject to the applicable provisions
of section 86. 514.
(c) County facilities or public projects, determined to be essential by the County,
including but not limited to a County Park or County Recreational facilities.
• In addition p. 9 of the county consultant HELIX May 31, 2018 report on which county
relies states in part: "The proposed project is an essential public project that is exempt
from the Resources Protection Ordinance (RPO) under Section 86.605(c)."
• BRR 4. County Inadequate Description of County Mitigation Exemptions and
Enforceable Mitigation Measures.
6
0 In the Final PEIR, state the present status of the above quoted draft ordinance
and any similar final ordinance.
0 Also, in the Final PEIR, clarify what the county's reference to RPO§ 86.605(c)
means. It appears that county "takes away" with its right hand [the ordinance]
what it purports to give with its left hand [the Palomar Airport PEIR biological
description and proposed mitigation requirements].
• Confirm in the Final PEIR that county irrevocably commits to the
biological mitigation measures identified and will not claim under the
noted draft ordinance or its successor or RPO 86.605( c) that Palomar
Airport need not comply with the PEIR biological mitigation
requirements. When answering this question, recall that the county
promised to comply with Carlsbad MC§ 23.53.015 and CUP 172 for
. many years but states in its current PEIR that it has no obligation to do
so.
• Explain in the Final PEIR when a county mitigation promise is binding? If county's
position is that binding biological mitigation results only when a signed agreement
exists between county and the wildlife agencies, then assure that such a binding
agreement is attached to the PMP and PEIR for approval when the BOS acts on the
PMPandPEIR.
• BRR 5. County's Description of Biological Habitat Areas Affected is Inadequate .
0 The recirculated PEIR p. 2-18 project description and map of existing conditions
is inadequate. It fails to identify how many acres of Airport land (i) comprise
the northeast comer ofECR and PAR, (ii) how many of these acres contain
protected vegetation and bird habitat, (iii) the estimated number of critters ( a
simple statistical sampling6 in different seasons gives an answer) impacted by
6 Statistical sampling is a common method for estimating biological as well as habitat and crop productivity.
7
northeast comer development, and (iv) over how many acres the Palomar
navigational aids will disperse light presently and in the future. 7
0 In the Final EIR, provide the noted information as well as a detailed map
showing the areas. 8
3 2.2.1.1 County lists • BRR 6. County's Meaningless References to Carlsbad Requirements. We are
Biological supposedly confused.
Resources applicable federal,
Regula-state, and local 0 In it PMP and in discussions among county and Carlsbad staff and the
tory laws including the community, the county has said that as a superior governmental entity, county
Setting Carlsbad -Habitat need not comply with Carlsbad zoning and general plan conditions and related
Mgmt Plan policies.
0 In the Final PEIR (i) state once and for all which (if any) Carlsbad zoning and
planning laws and related policies county is and is not complying with and (ii)
cite the official Board of Supervisor action supporting the county staffs claim.
Do not cite in your environmental documents laws that county does not intend to
comply with.
4 2.2.1.4 The report states • BRR 7. County's Inadequate Documentation of Raptor Species. In the Final PEIR,
Biological that the only raptor state how many hours during 2017, qualified biologists observed the Palomar Airport
Resources species observed northeast parcel bordering ECR and PAR and during what season and the months that
Raptor on-site overhead raptor species are expected in the area? In short, how reliable was the reporting?
Foraging, was the red-tailed
p. 2-24 hawk. • BRR 8. County Inadequate Documentation of Impact of Navigational Lighting on
Raptor Species. Where are the county-referenced minimum 5 acres of possible raptor
habitat located with relationship to the existing FAA navigational lighting aids and with
7 Like noise, light attenuates with distance. We understand that a description of the distance the light from the light towers travels may require an assumption of
a certain number oflumens (or other light measurement). When answering, state the number oflumens selected and the reason for the selection.
8 County refers to Figure 2.2-1 of the Draft NC MSCP Plan as depicting certain areas. Despite a JO-minute computer search, we were unable to find this Figure.
PEIR readers should not have to undertake a "treasure hunt" to find the documents county relies on.
8
relationship to the proposed FAA navigational lighting aids? Provide a map and state
the distance of such acreage from the lighting fixtures and explain why the lighting will
not interfere with them, taking into account the FAA light study referenced in Item 1
above and in footnote 5.
5 2.2.1.7 County states: • BRR 9. County Failure to Address Impact of Navigational Lighting on Species·
Biological "Night lighting When Predator Fences Missing.
Resources that extends from a
Indirect developed area 0 County does NOT state that the Palomar Airport NORTHEAST parcel east of
Impacts: onto adjacent ECR is bounded by a fence. Nor did we see a fence when driving past this
Lighting, wildlife habitat parcel.
pp. 2-26 can discourage 0 Since county concedes that the absence of a fence in added light conditions
to 2-27 nocturnal wildlife . favors predators over prey, adding and moving lighting enlarges the impacted
.. resulting in area and hence creates a significant impact.
alteration of 0 In the Final EIR, address this issue. List the number and location of lighting
natural behavior, before and after an 800-foot long runway extension and the "light enhanced"
and can provide area before and after the navigational lighting improvements. Recall the FAA
nocturnal Order 1050.1 F requires substantial details.
predators with an
unnatural advan-
tage over their
prey, resulting in a
potentially signi-
ficant impact . The
. .. active airfield [
is surrounded by
... chain link fence
... for security
and wildlife
exclusion. .. "
9
6 2.2.5 County admits its • BRR 10. County's Inadequate Description of Palomar Project Impact on
Biological PMP significant Biological Species/Habitat and of Enforceable Mitigation Measures.
Mitigation project impacts
Measures, include impacts to 0 The County 1997 BOS-adopted McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan in
pp. 2-36 gnatcatcher Appendix C in Section 7, entitled Biological Resources, says in part: "A
to 2-40 habitat, coastal biological resources report was not prepared for this initial study; therefore,
sage scrub, vernal project specific biological surveys would be required for all development
pool habitat, occurring within the remaining areas containing native vegetation ... prior to
granitic chamise the issuance of grading permits."
chaparral, 0 Since county failed to prepare an EIR in 1997 when county prepared its last 20-
migratory birds, year PMP and promised to do project specific biological surveys, provide in the
southern maritime Final PEIR the following information: (i) a list of all grading and construction
chaparral, and projects carried out on the Airport NORTHEAST parcel ofECR and PAR from
non-native 1997 to 2017 including but not limited to the installation of existing Palomar
grassland. navigational lighting and (ii) a list of the biological surveys that were undertaken
before each such project.
0 Especially provide in the Final PEIR the biological surveys that county
performed when it extended the Palomar Runway from 4700 feet to 4900 feet
and rerouted the service road at runway end.
0 This information is relevant to the enforceability of mitigation measures that
county has committed to in the past as well as to the enforceability of mitigation
measures county is committing to in the new PEIR and the sufficiency of the
enforceability language in the new PEIR. Absent the requested information, the
public can not tell whether county is adopting enforceable mitigation measures
in its PMP and environmental documents.
• BRR 11. County Inaccurate Habitat Calculation for 800-Foot v. 900-foot runway
(the Massive West Runway End Retaining Wall).
0 County has acknowledged sensitive habitat in the northwest portion of the active
Airport parcel. County has calculated habitat impacted based on the county
10
PMP projects to be undertaken. County may, or may not, have accurately
calculated the impacted acreage for the following reason.
0 The PEIR refers to a runway extension up to 800 feet long. However, the PEIR -
in response to the request of Supervisor HORN, the supervisor for the Palomar
Airport area -proposes a 900-foot alternative.
0 The extra 100 feet would be achieved by installing a massive Palomar Airport
west runway end retaining wall. Such a wall would remove massive amounts of
existing vegetation and animal habitat.
0 In the Final EIR, provide a map showing (i) where the sensitive vegetation was
located for each alternative [that is, with and without the retaining wall and extra
approximately 100 feet added]; (ii) how much of the sensitive habitat would be
impacted by installing and/or omitting the retaining wall; (iii) the significance of
the impact created on sensitive areas and/or wildlife; and (iv) the mitigation for
significant impacts.
• BRR 12. County Preservation of Sensitive Habitat Does not Satisfy Mitigation
Requirements. County refers to mitigating the loss of sensitive areas by preserving
other areas not impacted. We understand the law to say that governmental entities have
the obligation to preserve existing wildlife sensitive habitats. In the Final EIR, explain
(i) how preserving a habitat that county already has the legal obligation to maintain can
mitigate for the loss of habitat altered by county PMP projects and (ii) cite the relevant
law and regulations that recognizes such preservation as appropriate mitigation for
habitat destruction.
• BRR 13. County's Assessment on Biological Project Impacts is Inadequate for the
Airport Northeast Parcel. For the reasons set forth in footnote 3 in Item 1 above, the
county consultant HELIX report does not reliably assess the PMP required navigational
aids on the Palomar Airport EASTERN parcel. In the Final PEIR provide all the
relevant information requested in footnote 3 and provide the name and contact info for
the FAA person who has confirmed where the EASTERN parcel navigational aids
would have to be located if the runway were extended 800 feet and/or extended 900-feet
11
and/or relocated 120 feet northward.
7 §3.1.5 The title page says • BRR 14: County staff's GHG discussion is largely unintelligible .
Green-the new info 0 Even if county's alleged facts, assumptions, and formulas could be parsed, they
house Gas includes the GHG tell no simple story. It is impossible to figure out how airport-related GHG,
(GHG) Analysis Memo of small or large, are counted into an overall GHG reduction program.
Title Page County of June 0 Even if county had no legal obligation to mitigate GHG emissions [ doubtful
2018. since county chooses to operate Palomar, not just build it, and lengthen the
runway, which will attract a larger mix oflarger more fuel laden aircraft], county
still has the CEQA obligation to disclose the extent that ALL Palomar aircraft
operations will have on GHG emissions.
0 In the Final EIR, include a simple table showing (i) what total Palomar
operational GHG emissions from all aircraft and associated support equipment
are today and will be in 2036; (ii) what total GHG emissions are today and will
be from all vehicles associated with Palomar operations [including users of all
aircraft and of all vendors supplying Palomar, such as the fuel trucks]; (iii) what
total GHG emissions are today and will be from all PMP project construction
including the GHG released from the three Palomar landfills if several hundred
pilings are placed 30 to 50 feet into the ground; and (iv) why it is NOT feasible
for county to offset the increase in GHG by purchasing GHG credits from
companies reducing their emissions. Explain how county is meeting Governor
Brown's state-adopted GHG emission goals if county is ignoring GHG
emissions related to aircraft it invites to its expanded Palomar Airport.
0 If any Board of Supervisor member understands county's alleged GHG analysis,
dinner at a nice restaurant on us. We'll pick up the Emperor's Clothes on the
way.
• BRR 15. Readers Cannot Assess What County's "Reference/non-Reference" to its
The title page also Original GHG Technical Report Means. In the Final PEIR, explain what the bolded
says "The original language to the left means. The PEIR that county circulated in March 2018 refers to a
Climate Change "Draft Climate Chan~e Technical Revort for the MP Master Plan Update of
12
Technical Report DECEMBER 2017." How much of the December 2017 report remains intact and is to
is available on the be relied on and how much is replaced by the June 2018 report? How does the public
Master Plan lay reader know?
website for info
purposes but is • BRR 16. County's GHG "Significance Threshold" Discussion is Unintelligible .
not the subject of County's table entitled Recirculation Reader's Guide at page 2 of its June CEQA
this recirculation[§ 3.1.5 GHG] states in part: DPEIR Section 3.1.5 was also revised to ...
recirculation." discuss a revised significance threshold. "
(Emphasis 0 Explain in the Final PEIR whether the original December 2017 GHG analysis
added.) remains valid or are parts of it (including the significance thresholds) replaced?
0 County's confusing statement is not a mere technical error. It is the difference to
a lay reader spending 3 hours or 6 hours to attempt to understand an extremely
technical subject, which not even the county understands as explained below.
0 Explain in the Final PEIR what pages of the county December 2017 circulated
GHG facts and analysis remain valid and which have been replaced so a
reviewing court knows what county is in fact saying.
8 §3.1.5 County states: Presumably, the county GHG analysis has four goals. First, establish the existing "Project"
GHG "The information GHG emission levels. Second, establish how much the PMP projects change these levels.
Emissions in this section Third, determine if increased emissions exceed GHG levels of significance. Fourth, if so,
considers potential implement mitigation measures. Determining emission levels requires county to find and
impacts as a result assess all construction and operational GHG emissions. County's GHG methodology is
of GHG emissions fundamentally flawed for several reasons. We explain many defects in these introductory
due to the comments and questions so the flaws can be seen comprehensively.
Proposed Project.
13
BRR 17. Flawed "Project" Scope #1 Error: Piecemeal Analysis.9
• County controls 8 county of San Diego Airports. Often aircraft fly from one county
airport to another, as when training flights and recreational flights leave Gillespie and
fly to Palomar and other airports. As county notes in its GHG presentation, GHG
analysis is fundamentally a "cumulative" analysis.
• But county engages in its familiar CEQA "project splitting" by assessing its 8 airports
individually. Individual assessment may be appropriate for individual airport
construction impacts but not for operational impacts.
• Cumulatively, the 8 county airport operations may exceed applicable threshold GHG
levels ( or the alternative violation of policy criteria) and hence trigger mitigation
requirements. But county avoids the trigger by assessing each airport individually.
• That approach fundamentally avoids mitigating for the GHG emissions the 8 county
airports cumulatively cause. In this way, county, and the Cal Trans Division of
Aeronautics, frustrate the GHG laws enacted under Governor Brown.
• To confirm this conclusion, simply look at county's recirculated GHG mitigation
measures at pages 3-79 to 3-80, which have nothing to do with aircraft operations. This
factor should be taken into account when county applies for State airport-related grants.
• In the Final PEIR, discuss the issues raised in this paragraph and provide the
cumulative annual GHG emissions from aircraft and vehicles using the 8 county
airports.
BRR 18. Flawed Project Scope #2 Error: Airport-Traffic Undercounts Tied to
County's "Air Carrier" Analysis Only.
9 County discussion of air quality impacts separately at its 8 airports might be appropriate because air quality and significance levels may vary among the
airports. However, as county concedes, GHG discussion is conceded to be a "cumulative" analysis. That means that every GHG addition no matter where
hastens the Global Warming impacts that California state law seeks to avoid. Hence, county must treat GHG emission analysis differently than air quality
emission impacts generally.
14
• County says it assessed the GHG emissions associated with vehicles Palomar
passengers use. County says it based these counts on its passenger forecasts of PAL 1
and PAL 2. But PAL 1 and PAL 2 include only passengers on "commercial air
carriers."
• In 2016, Palomar had about 150,000 annual operations. Of those, less than 5,000
operations involved regularly scheduled commercial carriers.
• Omitted from PAL 1 and PAL 2 are all private aircraft pilots and their passengers, all
corporate pilots and their passengers, all chartered flight pilots and their passengers, and
all helicopter pilots and their passengers.10 In other words, county Palomar traffic GHG
calculations ignore about 140,000 annual operations, which carry on average 1 to 6
airport users who must travel to and from the airport.
• If for example, on average, the foregoing annual operations shuttled 3 people, then
county has ignored 3 x 140,000 annual airport users = 420,000 users. Two trips for each
user equates to an ignored 840,000 annual trips.
• In the Final PEIR, (i) explain why these users have been omitted, (2) explain what
measures county will put in place to count the many "hidden users" (for example the
number of passengers shuttled by corporate aircraft), and (3) provide the recalculated
numbers and analysis.
§3.1.5.l County notes that County's statement errs for three reasons.
GHG under the ACRP
Existing 11 11 analysis, so-• BRR 19. Reason 1: Field of Dreams: Build It and They Will Come .
Condition called Scope 3
s emission sources " 0 As the FAA repeatedly says -usually in the context of noise -if a community
are not primarily does not want more aircraft impacts, do not build airports capable of handling
under the County's more and/or larger aircraft. Two things are equally true.
ownership or 0 If county's PMP accepts the No-Build alternative, air traffic will incrementally
10 Recall that the discussion in this paragraph focuses on Palomar Airport.
11 ACRP Report 11 = FAA Airport Cooperative Research Program "Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories."
15
direct control" increase at Palomar, especially since Palomar has existing excess capacity as
and County has no shown by its historical use.
authority to 0 But equally true, if county extends the Palomar runway, more larger aircraft will
regulate aircraft also use Palomar and eventually, larger aircraft will displace the smaller general
or their emissions, aircraft -as Supervisor Hom said in his December 2015 statement in the Board
and there is no of Supervisor open session when the Palomar Airport Runway Feasibility Study
applicable was considered. For a transcript of Supervisor Horn's statement, see
methodology or Attachment A to these comments, incorporated by reference.
threshold with 0 County's PMP and PEIR-apparently tongue in cheek-say that it is not the
which to evaluate county's intent to attract more aircraft to Palomar by extending the runway, a
[their] statement that flies in the face of what happens every time a runway is extended.
significance . . . . " 0 County's past Palomar improvements also contradict county's stated intent.
County built a 150 foot wide allegedly B-11 runway when FAA requirements
only called for a 75-foot to 100-foot width, thereby enticing larger C and D size
aircraft (having wider wings and therefore needing more separation between
aircraft using the runway and taxiway concurrently) to use Palomar Airport.
Similarly, county in the 2000s increased the runway length from 4700 feet to
4900 feet and increased the runway surface wheel loading capacity to attract
larger aircraft.
0 In the Final PEIR discussion of GHG emissions -especially in the discussion
of which alternatives comply with the county's 8 selection criteria-explain why
extending the runway to serve more, larger aircraft carrying significantly more
fuel [2,000 to 4,000 gallons for C and D aircraft rather than 150 gallons for
FAA-rated A aircraft] furthers California's GHG intent and goals. Also explain
how county concludes that it need not reduce GHG emissions attributable to
aircraft when (i) it is county that increases the GHG emissions by undertaking its
PMP improvements thereby attracting more larger, fuel laden aircraft to Palomar
and (ii) it is within county's power to undertake various non-aircraft GHG
mitigation measures that could offset aircraft GHG emissions.
16
• BRR 20. Reason 2: Regulation of Palomar Airport Runway Use Intervals .
0 The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preserved the county's rights to impose
proprietary restrictions on use of it airports.12
0 In addition, the Clean Air Act -which has always recognized the right of
California to enact more stringent air quality regulations -includes regulation of
GHG.13
0 Hence, ample authority exists to support county actions to reduce GHG aircraft
emissions at county airports by restricting runway interval use.
12 See the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978:
"FEDERAL PREEMPTION
49use1305. "SEC.105.
(a)(l) Except as provided in par a graph (2) of this subsection, no State or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of tt
wo or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or servic
es of any 49 u s e 13 71 air carrier having authority under title I V of this Act to provide inter-state air transportation.
"PROPRIETARY POWERS AND RIGHTS
( b ) ( 1) Nothing in subsection (a) of this section shall be construed to limit the authority of any State or political subdivision thereof or any interstate agency or ot
her political agency of two or more States as the owner or operator of an airport served by any air carrier certificated by the Board to exercise its proprietary pow
ers and rights.
13 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act which provides
''The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (s) under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "Act") from mobile and
stationary sources of air pollution for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA,
and GHGs from stationary sources are currently controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. The basis for regulations was upheld in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012. Court Backs E.P.A. Over Emissions Limits Intended to Reduce Global Warming June 26,
2012 D.C. appeals court upholds EPA regulations to fight global warming by Darryl Fears, June 26, 2012.
17
0 One way to reduce emissions is to reduce the interval times between aircraft
taking off from Palomar. Increasing interval times means that aircraft taxing
time will be reduced, thereby reducing GHG (and other air quality) emissions.
0 Increasing interval times also has a secondary benefit. County reports that the
FAA tower sometimes orders aircraft taking off to deviate from the Palomar
Voluntary Noise Abatement Plan (VNAP) flight paths. Deviation is ordered to
make room for "following" aircraft. If the following aircraft take off a minute or
two later, the FAA tower would have no need to direct the leading aircraft off
the VNAP preferred route.
0 In the Final PEIR, discuss the issues in this paragraph. Specifically:
(1) Discuss whether county has considered altering runway interval takeoff
times as a mitigation measure;
(2) If not, explain why not;
(3) If so, provide the contact information for the people at the FAA and Cal
Trans Division of Aeronautics that county discussed the issues with so that
we may follow up on such discussions.
(4) Explain why the suggested increased Palomar runway interval times would
not reduce GHG emissions -if that is the county position.
• BRR21. Reason 3: Aircraft GHG Restrictions Available to County.
0 County states, in essence, that there is no value to evaluating aircraft GHG
emissions because there is no methodology or threshold standards that the
acquired data could be used for.
0 County ignores that fact that the international treaties, federal, and state law say
in essence that any addition to GHG is harmful and should be curtailed. In other
words -unlike the standard CEQA air quality analysis, which follows the
threshold approach, county cannot say that aircraft GHG emissions are harmless
until they reach a certain level.
0 Accordingly, in the Final PEIR, identity GHG mitigation measures that would
be helpful at Palomar Airport, even if county contends the measures would have
18
to be imposed by the FAA or other agency. Otherwise, it is clear that county is
simply "going through the motions" to satisfy a technical GHG technical
requirement only, as opposed to trying to solve a GHG problem.
10 § 3.1.5.1 County says no • BRR 20. GHG Analysis Methodology. We hear county's concern. But oddly, county
Existing available methods does not explain how Los Angeles International Airport, or John Wayne Airport, or San
Condi-exist to analyze Diego International Airport have analyzed GHGs in their EIRS. In the Final PEIR,
tions, p. 3-airport GHG
56 emissions, 0 Explain what approaches other busy airports have taken to analyzing GHG
especially since emissions and why that approach does not work for the 8 county airports.
CEQ guidelines 0 Explain how county ignoring the GHG emissions from its 8 county airports,
have been Palomar especially, will contribute to State and local agencies meeting the state-
withdrawn. imposed deadlines to reduce GHG emissions. Is the county simply saying it can
ignore all aircraft emissions from aircraft attracted to the airports county
designed, built, and operates?
11 § 3.1.5.1, County says: • BRR 21. GHG Analysis: The California B-30-15 Executive Order.
California "California
Global Executive Order 0 In the Final PEIR, explain how county interprets the Executive Order it quotes.
Warming B-30-15 signed in 0 The EO is subject to abuse for the following reason.
Solutions April 2015, added • Assume that (i) in 1990, Palomar handled 250,000 aircraft and (ii)
Act of an intermediate handles 200,000 aircraft (close to the county projection) in 2030.
2006,p.3-GHG emissions • The question is: For purposes of determining the 2030 40% GHG
56 reduction target. reduction target, how does county determine its 1990 Palomar baseline
This target is set GHG level?
as the reduction of • Should the baseline be 40% of the GHG for 250,000 aircraft actually
GHG emissions to handled in 1990 [what the words seemingly mean] or 40% of the GHG
40 percent below level for 200,000, the number of aircraft handled in both 1990 and 2030
1990 levels by · [ an interpretation more consistent with the intent of reducing GHG? In
2030." other words, looking at the intent to reduce GHG over time, the quoted
EO makes sense when aircraft operations increase over time, but not
19
necessarily if they decrease over time. Without the foregoing
information, it is impossible to determine what the county's mitigation
intent is when GHG thresholds are exceeded.
12 § 3.1.5.1, • County notes • BRR22 . County Ignores Its Ability to Mitigate Palomar GHG Emissions Through
California that the CARB's "Cap & Trade" Program.
Cap& California Air
Trade Resources 0 County does not explain what mitigation obligations county might have under a
Program, Board (CARB) Cap and Trade program.
p. 3-57 is working on a 0 We understand the Cap and Trade concept to be that when an entity owns and
"Cap and operates a facility which creates GHG, the entity may need to assure that at a
Trade" different location GHG emissions are reduced in some way including by
program. purchasing GHG credits available in the market resulting from certain facilities
either closing or operating more efficiently.
0 If county does not extend the runway and attract more aircraft, presumably
California cap and trade requirements should apply only to aircraft operators.
However, if county expands the airport thereby increasing airport capacity and
GHG emissions beyond the "natural growth" of the airport, then county should
be responsible for implementing "cap and trade" mitigation measures.
0 In the Final PEIR, discuss the county's position on the issues raised in BRR 22.
If the county position is that it has no "cap and trade" obligation, explain why
not when county airport expansion leads to airport growth and increased GHG
em1ss1ons. Recall that CEQA requires county to discuss all feasible mitigation
measures.
13 § 3.1.5.1, County says: • BRR 23. County Recognizes that Its PMP GHG Obligations are Inconsistent with
County of "The County 2011 Its County General Plan and Hence County Has Not Met County's Government
SD General Plan cites Code Requirements.
Climate goals and policies
Action pertaining to all 0 In essence, county concedes what we extensively noted in our March 2018 PEIR
Plan, p. 3-County-owned comments. By (i) adopting a 2011 County General Plan applicable only to
20
60 airports including unincorporated areas of the county, (ii) then asking Carlsbad to apply Carlsbad
McClellan-zoning and planning to Palomar Airport and accepting such planning and
Palomar Airport zoning, and (iii) then in its March 2018 PMP and PEIR attempting to disavow
which is a County-the application of Carlsbad planning and zoning, county has created a real mess.
owned facility. County's June 2018 Revised Draft PEIR Section 3.1.5 Greenhouse Gas
However, because Emissions Recirculation only deepens the morass. Questions that come to mind
the airport is include the following:
located within the
City of Carlsbad, • Carlsbad and County GHG Counting Methodology . Inits2015
the airport does Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad calculated GHG emissions from
not have a County-Carlsbad traffic including those along El Camino Real and Palomar
designated zone or Airport Road. In part, the vehicle traffic GHG emissions derive from
land use to actual Carlsbad traffic studies showing how busy these roads are. Of
compare against necessity, the traffic GHG emission levels included traffic derived from
the assumed Palomar users. Based on these numbers, Carlsbad calculated its State of
designations used California GHG mitigation obligations.14 If these obligations are county,
in the CAP. not Carlsbad, obligations, then the county should correct the mess it has
Because the CAP created. The way to do that is:
and the County • For the Board of Supervisors to confirm -if the BOS agrees with
GHG Guidelines the position county staff stated in its PMP and PEIR -that county
are based upon the no longer wishes to comply with Carlsbad zoning and planning
land use restrictions and policies.
assumptions of the • For the Board of Supervisors (following all the Government Code
2011 General procedures) to amend its 2011 County General Plan to precisely
Plan, the fact that state what county obligations apply at Palomar Airport and at
the Airport Master Gillespie Airport, the two county airports within charter city
Plan areas.
improvements • For county and Carlsbad staff to then coordinate their GHG
14 We are aware that Carlsbad apparently says that it did not consider Palomar aircraft operational levels directly, not surprising since Carlsbad in 2015 had no
idea of the county PAL 1 and PAL 2 forecasts.
21
were not include in analysis and mitigation efforts to assure an appropriate allocation
the 2011 General of responsibility between the two entities.
Plan means that 0 CAP Issues: As noted above, county and Carlsbad will then have to adjust their
the CAP cannot be CAP and trade obligations if other mitigation measures do not sufficiently
used to streamline address GHG issues.
the review ofGHG
emission from the 0 In county's Final PEIR respond to the preceding issues. Include a citation from
Proposed the 2011 County General Plan to support county's contention that County GP
Project." requirements apply to Palomar given the fact that the County General Plan states
it applies only to county facilities in unincorporated areas of the county.
0 If county still maintains that all 2011 County General Plan policies apply to
Palomar Airport, then explain in the Final PEIR why county failed to discuss
these policies including all the policies that we outlined at pages 1 to 21 of our
Part A, March 2018 comments on the county PMP and PEIR so that the county
position is clear for court review.
14 §3.1.5.2 At p. 3-58, county • BRR 24. County's GHG Methodology Does Not Meet CARB's "Evidence-Based"
Project says: "[T]he requirement.
Specific [California Air
Service Resources Board] 0 In a nutshell, county says that Palomar could serve as many as 1,311,539
Population 2017 Scoping Plan residents today (out ofa total 2014 SD populationof3.2 million) and 1,552,067 Update includes a p. 3-66 statement in 2036.
regarding GHG 0 Using the latter figure, county then divides estimated 2036 Palomar GHG-
emission related emissions by the latter population figure; County concludes (apparently)
evaluation under that each potential Palomar user thus contributes 0.026 to 0.035 metric tons of
CEQA, "[l]ead GHG to the environment in 2036. [p. 3-69].
agencies have the 0 Along the way, county suggests that the per person GHG metric ton limit is 3.01.
discretion to [p. 3-69]. Stated simply, if you use Palomar Airport in 2036, you will use
develop evidence-0.0086 of your GHG allotment. A negligible amount. So why worry.
based numeric 0 Consider just a few reasons why the foregoing methodolo2:v makes no sense:
22
thresholds (mass
emissions, per • Arbitrary Data. To plug numbers into its GHG formula, county could
capita, or per have used at least three different numbers: total people in SD county, the
service population "made-up" number county did use tracking people who "mighta, coulda, [SP]) consistent woulda" used Palomar, or the actual projected PAL 1 and PAL 2 with this Scoping estimated passenger usage numbers (304,673 and 575,000 respectively). Plan, the State's
long-term GHG The most logical choice would be the last. Tie GHG use to the people
goals, and climate using it. But none of these approaches have true merit.
change science."
Unhelpful Data. Truth be told, county is grinding out meaningless However, unlike •
the assessment of numbers. Seemingly, those numbers are irrelevant if the per person
community area Palomar GHG emissions are negligible. However Governor Brown and
plans, no specific the climate experts say that several U.S. coastal cities including some in
method was California will be under water within 15 to 20 years. County's data
provided by GARB provides little helpful information to mitigate the state-predicted on how to develop impending disaster. a SP threshold for
an individual The Fundamental County Methodology Flaw . As noted in the CARB project." Then at •
p. 3-68 county column 3 quoted to the left, county's task is to develop an "evidence-
proposes an "SP" based" GHG emissions number to help the state meet its GHG emission
(Scoping reduction goals. Although California has a minute share of world
Plan/Service population and land area 15, California has decided that its GHG reduction
Population) based program will help avert Climate Change. County's adopted
on San Diego methodology presume minute airport GHG emissions are insignificant.
population This approach contradicts the basic policy decision that the state has
numbers. already made in Sacramento: namely, minute California GHG reductions
[when compared to world GHG emissions] will make a difference. By
15 California has about½ of I percent of the world population [about 40 million people of7.6 billion people] and 164,000 square miles of 57,500,00 square miles
or .002 percent of the global land area. Moreover, actual California land area contributing to Climate Change is significantly less than the 164,000 California
square miles because perhaps 90% of California's population lies within 50 miles of the coast.
23
definition, minute California GHG reductions aggregate both major and
minor reductions at the local level.
• The Solution: For reasons noted above, county's GHG program should
focus on (i) total GHG emissions from all 8 county airports, not
individual airports and (2) procedural changes that reduce airport-related
GHG emissions. These emissions should then be compared to the
overall California estimated GHG annual emissions. As a practical
matter, it is unlikely that California can meet its GHG goals unless
"across the board" GHG reduction measures are adopted for all
businesses and governmental facilities in California, especially given the
short time frame available to produce meaningful results.
• Contrast what county tries to do in its GHG analysis with what the air
quality agencies do to reduce Clean Air Act (CAA) pollutants generally.
• Take just one example. Rather than calculating (i) how often property
owners paint their houses and (ii) how big the houses are and (iii)
therefore how much each property owner painting a building will
contribute to CAA pollutants, CARB simply undertook a program to
reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants from
industrial "coatings" (paints and other materials). The "count the houses
and allocate quotas" would be a worthless approach. Just as the county
attempt to allocate quotas to individual persons using aircraft is
worthless. CARB's 'adopt uniform measures to reduce pollutants" is the
demonstrated successful approach.
• As noted above, one procedure county could adopt to reduce aircraft
emissions from aircraft idling needlessly on the Palomar runway is to
increase the interval time between aircraft taking off. Limiting the
number of "touch and go" flights might be another operational measure
24
that could be adopted. Perhaps aircraft "simulator" training (sponsored
with FAA funds) could substantially reduce the need for actual flights.
0 In the Final PEIR, discuss the issues above. Explain why the adopted county
methodology is not arbitrary. Explain how dividing county wide emissions at
the 8 county airports into allegedly "insignificant" emissions helps achieve the
state's goal ofreducing GHG. Explain why the county cannot reduce Palomar
take-off times to improve both GHG reductions and VNAP noise compliance.
15 § 3.1.5.2.1 County says it • BRR 25. County's GHG construction emission calculations for on-site
Project-calculated all construction equipment are incomplete and/or internally inconsistent for the
Generated relevant GHG following reasons.
GHG em1ss10ns.
Emissions 0 County says it follows the FAA ACRP 11 requirements. ACRIP defines
pp. 3-66 construction emissions as from mobile equipment.
to 3-70. • Inconsistent Reporting of EMAS Carbon Dioxide Emissions. County
Recirculated Table 3.1.5 -3 entitled "Total Construction GHG
Emissions" respectively lists for PMP Items 4 (Palomar runway west end
EMAS) and 15 (Palomar runway east end EMAS) carbon dioxide
emissions of 1684 metric tons and 16 metric tons. 16
• The West End EMAS and EAST End EMAS are essentially identical.
Each EMAS is designed to handle the exact same aircraft, the only
difference being whether aircraft head east or west.
• Yet, County's GHG emissions for the west end EMAS are 100+ times
greater than the CHG emissions for the east end.
• Explain in the Final PEIR how the PMP project phase 4 and 15 EMAS
element emissions were calculated and why they differ so drastically.
16 For a list of project element descriptions, see Appendix A entitle CRQ MP EIR Construction Emissions Inventory Remarks, p. I attached to the county
December 20 I 7 Draft Climate Change Technical Report for the MP Airport Master Plan Update.
25
0 Inconsistent Reporting of (i) Equipment Used for 200-Foot Runway
Extension (PMP Item 7) and Additional 600-Foot Runway Extension and
Runway Relocation (PMP Item 12) and (ii) Carbon dioxide emissions for
these Items.17
• Appendix A entitled CRQ MP EIR Construction Emissions Inventory
Remarks lists "Off-Road Equipment" used in various project phases.
(See unnumbered page 3.) For the Item 7, 200-foot runway extension
over pilings, Appendix A lists 2 bore rigs working 8 hours a day. For the
Item 12, 600-foot extension, Appendix A lists no bore rigs. Similarly,
Appendix A omits references to Items (Phases) 1-3, 6, 8, 10-14, and 16.
• Explain in the Final PEIR why the noted omissions were made and
recalculate the GHG emissions for the missing equipment.
• Recirculation Table 3.1.5-3 at page 3-76 reports GHG carbon dioxide
emissions for PMP Item 7 (adding 200-feet to the runway) and Item 12
(relocating a 5100 foot runway+ adding 600 more feet constructed on
hundreds of very deep piling placed through Palomar landfills)
respectively of 88 tons and 725 tons.
• A 5700-foot runway is 28.5 times longer than a 200-foot runway
extension. The GHG carbon dioxide emissions for a runway 28.5
times longer should be about 28.5 times greater. Multiplying the
county-listed 88 metric tons for the 200-foot extension times 28.5
yields 2508 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for the 5700-
foot runway relocation (including 600-foot extension). Yet
county reports only 725 tons.
• The GHG emissions for the relocation and extension should in
fact be much more due to the need to drill hundreds of very deep
holes for the 600-foot extension through trash.
• Explain in the Final PEIR why the noted omissions were made
and recalculate the GHG emissions for the missing equipment.
17 Id for description of PMP Items 7 and 12.
26
• Explain in the Final PEIR how the miscalculations noted above
affected the estimated PMP project costs. As county notes in its
PEIR, the project alternative selected depends on 8 evaluation
criteria including project cost. The omissions above likely
significantly affected project costs, especially as related to the
cost of drilling hundreds of very deep pilings.
• Explain in the Final PEIR (i) how many truck movements
county will require to dispose of hazardous material 18 augured
from more than 200 very deep holes drilled to install runway
extension pilings; (ii) how far such trucks must drive round trip to
ensure disposal in a hazardous waste landfill; and (iii) the air
pollutants and GHG emissions from such trucks.
16 Table Existing • BRR26 . Table 3.1-5 confirms the county bias (prejudgement) for its preferred
3.1.5-1 Conditions (2016) project alternative.
GHG Emissions
Inventory 0 The Table has no data for GHG emissions related to the vehicles traveling to and
from Palomar. The Table footnote says; "Off-airport motor vehicle emissions
were only calculated for net increase in emissions." Translated, the omission
means county staff and the BOS have prejudged the PMP and PEIR and have no
intent to consider the "No Project" alternative. CEQA requires data to be
provided for all project alternatives.
0 Also the table fails to state the level of GHG emissions from the methane gas
from 30 acres of closed landfills at the airport. In theory, county today collects
all the methane gas and "flares" it off at the "collection tower" in the airport
parking lot. On several occasions in the past, airport asphalt cracks have
released methane into the air. Also the mid and late 2000s underground landfill
fires released methane gas and county was required to get AQMD variances for
18 Recall that the landfill includes hundreds of thousands of A, B, C, and D batteries from toys, remote controls, power tools and other sources; light bulbs and
fluorescent lights; various remodeling material including asbestos and vinyl flooring, which the contractor augurs will grind up and remove from the landfill.
27
such releases, which continued for some time.
0 Methane Gas (CO4) contributes substantial carbon dioxide emissions into the
air. Hence, county's omission of methane data info from the GHG calculations
is significant both because county ignores a major source and because methane
has a much greater negative impact on GHG. The omitted data will provide a
baseline against which the methane increases noted below may be judged.
0 In the Final PEIR, address the issues noted above. Especially explain what
quantities of methane gas are daily burnt at Palomar and state the level of toxics
[presumably small] that the burnt gas releases into the air. Also, provide the
formula showing how much each unit of methane gas converts into carbon
dioxide emissions.
17 Table Sources of Airport • BRR 27. County's GHG Analysis Fails to Include Potent Landfill Methane Gas
3.1.5-2 GHG Emissions Emissions. County's Table 3.1.5-2 notes that "construction" GHG emissions evaluated
include only emissions from backhoes, cranes, dozers, loaders, haul trucks and
excavators. County's Table in Column 3 (CH4) includes virtually no methane gas
(CH4) emissions for non-aircraft sources. County made no attempt to assess methane
gas emissions from the landfills during construction or afterward. This omission is fatal
to county's GHG analysis for the following reasons:
0 Palomar has 30 acres of underground landfills (Units 1, 2, and 3 ), which have an
extensive underground methane gas collection system. Gas collected is piped to
the tall Palomar Airport parking tower and burnt off.
0 County plans to extend the Palomar runway 800 feet into and over the 19-acrre
Unit 3 closed landfill immediately at the east end of the Palomar runway. Even
if the runway is moved 120 feet to the north, as county proposes, the extension is
over the landfill.
0 The county's existing plastic methane collection system sits 3 to 7 feet below the
runway east end soil. At one of the county Palomar workshops, county
consultant Kimley-Horn, confirmed that the existing methane gas collection
system will have to be replaced. The flimsy methane gas plastic piping cannot
28
survive (i) extremely heavy bulldozers and graders passing over it thousands of
times and (ii) county boring hundreds of holes 15 feet to 40 feet or more deep to
install "cast-in-place" pilings to support grade beams, which in tum support an
extended runway. This runway extension will only be a few inches above the
remaining closed landfill underneath.
o As county's GHG Appendix A entitled CRQ MP EIR Construction Emissions
Inventory Remarks notes in the "Construction Phase Remarks," relocating the
Palomar runway will require 39 weeks of demolition plus construction time
when the runway is moved north 120 feet.
o County will destroy underground Unit 3 methane gas collection piping on two
different occasions: in the next 7 years when the runway is extended 200-feet
and in about 15 to 18 years when the runway is relocated and the short-term 200-
foot extension is destroyed and relocated.
o Recall that the statutory CEQA test as to whether an EIR must discuss public
concerns is: Do substantial facts exist to support the conclusion that the
proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment
o As a result of the Palomar closed landfill underground fires in the 2000s, the San
Diego Air Quality agencies required county to obtain a variance to emit landfill
gases into the air. We know therefore that the agencies protecting air quality
consider methane emissions into the air to be significant.
o County says it needs to drill (augur) hundreds of very deep holes through the
Unit 3 Palomar landfill trash so county can then (i) place tall towers of rebar
cages into the holes and (ii) cast pilings from the bottom to the tops of the holes.
The pilings will be cast in casings. The augurs will generate substantial heat as
large metal bits bite into landfill trash from the 1960s and 1970s including tin
cans; thousands of batteries from toys, remote controls, and tools. Each piling
casing will be surrounded by a ½ inch or more air gap.
o In the Final PEIR address the issues above and explain:
• Methane Gas Diversion Dorine: Construction: When the existing
29
Palomar methane gas collection system is shut down during an 8 to 12
month construction period, how will the daily emissions of methane gas
be diverted and kept out of the air. How much methane gas is burned
daily when the system is operating? How much will escape into the air
during construction operations? If county claims that "engineering
solutions" have been found to control methane gas emissions, cite the
specific literature to which county refers. [Our engineers advise that cast-
in-place piling casings are notoriously leaky and county will not be able
to control methane gas leakage, especially if the augurs encounter ground
waters.] Provide sufficient detail and supporting evidence for county's
contentions for court review.
• Piling Construction Auguring. When drilling through the trash, how
hot will the auguring bits become? What temperature is "safe" to avoid a
new landfill fire when county drills through the landfill trash? Recall
that introducing water to cool the augur heads is not an option as county
is prohibited from introducing water into the landfills for environmental
reasons.
• Recalculation of GHG Emissions. In the Final PEIR, show how county
calculated the GHG emissions attributable to landfill gas escaping.
Provide all county assumptions relevant to such calculations.
• BRR 28. GHG Emissions from Longer Pilings Resulting from Dynamic Loads .
0 Engineers design structures to handle both static and dynamic (moving) loads.
A famous example of an engineering design failure was the collapse of an
interior Hyatt Hotel walkway over an atrium, which could not handle the
dynamic loads caused by hotel guests dancing on the walkway during a hotel
event.19
19 See https://www.engineering.com "Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse, posed on October 24, 2006
30
0 County's stated PMP intent is to convert Palomar from a B-11 airport handling
predominantly small aircraft (more than 75% weighing less than 15,000 pounds)
to a D-111 airport handling aircraft typically in the range of 80,000 to 100,000
pounds. FAA-rated C and D aircraft also land at higher approach speeds than
FAA-rated A and B aircraft.
0 In the Final PEIR, state whether county has analyzed the effect of 130 very
fast, heavy, FAA-rated C & D aircraft per day stressing more than 200 runway
pilings. If so, what is the effect of such increased loads on the runway
extension pilings and the landfill underneath? The amount of load will
determine the piling length for hundreds of pilings and the methane gas amounts
released as piling augur holes are drilled deeper and deeper to achieve the
needed length to support the runway extension.
• In the Final PEIR, state who made the decision to omit landfill methane gas emissions
from the analysis and why this decision was made and analyze the impact on GHG
emissions that heavy aircraft landing on an extended runway will create. Provide the
analysis showing county's assumptions, analysis, and calculations to support its
conclusions so that engineers may review them.
18 Table Total Construction • BRR 29. The Hidden Retaining Walls. Table 3.1.5-3 lists GHG emissions for the 16
3.1.5-3 GHG Emissions PMP project phases that county identifies (by name) in Appendix A (to county's initial
Draft Report) entitled "CRQ MP EIR Construction Emissions Inventory Remarks. "
County's PMP discusses the possibility of two massive retaining walls: one on the
Palomar runway west side and one on the runway southeast side along Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real. County does not separately call out the GHG emissions
related to construction of these walls. A separate call out is needed for two reasons.
0 First, constructing a massive retailing wall at the comer of PAR and ECR may
require closing one or more traffic lanes for several weeks. The PAR and ECR
already has a traffic Level of Service (LOS) of F [gridlock] at peak hours.
Closing traffic lanes to construct the southeast retaining wall will increase motor
31
vehicle diversions and idling times especially during gridlock. In the Final
PEIR, state whether county considered these GHG and non-GHG air quality
impacts.
0 Second, as county's consultant concedes, a Palomar runway west end retaining
wall, is not needed for an 800-foot runway extension. Rather, this $13 million
retaining wall is listed simply to appease Supervisor Hom who has made
requests since the December 2015 Board of Supervisor meeting to build a 900-
foot, rather than 800-foot runway extension.
• As consultant states, the purpose of the Palomar runway west end
retaining wall is simply to allow the county to create an extra 100-feet of
length so that the runway in the future can be lengthened to 900-feet. In
the Final PEIR, state the GHG emissions that are associated with
constructing a massive retaining wall in the canyon area adjoining the
Palomar runway west end.
• Explain in the Final PEIR why the wall is needed when (i) it does not
support any of the county's stated project alternatives, namely the
extension of the runway up to 800-feet and (ii) the impacts wildlife [see
the discussion in BRR 9 above]. Provide sufficient detail for court
review.
• BRR 30. Methane Gas Emissions. In the Final PEIR, explain why column 4 of
Table 3.1.5-3 reports virtually no methane gas (CH4) emissions.
19 Table Project-related • BRR 31. Proper Calculation of All Aircraft and All Aircraft Related Vehicle GHG
3.1.5-4 GHG Emissions Emissions. Table 3.1.5-4 refers to GHG emissions related to PAL 1 and PAL 2
from Operational (forecasted air carrier passenger levels until 2036). We need to understand what county
Activities does and does not include in its GHG calculations and why. In the Final EIR, confirm
the following facts or correct them as appropriate:
0 Aircraft Emissions. Aircraft emissions should include all emissions for air
32
carriers (commercial-passenger-carrying regularly scheduled aircraft), corporate
aircraft, all other general aviation aircraft, chartered aircraft, and helicopters. IF
county includes GHG emissions ONLY for air carriers carrying the PAL 1 and
PAL 2 forecasted passenger levels, state why. Also state what the GHG
emission levels are for the other aircraft noted in this paragraph if they are not
already included in Table 3 .1.5-4. Otherwise, county again indicates its
predisposition to ignore the No-Project alternative in favor of its preferred
alternative - a CEQA violation.
0 Passenger-Related Vehicle Emissions. We understand that although Table
3.1.5-4 may include GHG emissions for all Palomar aircraft, county includes
GHG emissions only for air carrier passenger motor vehicle trips to and from
Palomar. In other words, we understand county omits motor vehicle trips to and
from Palomar for users of Palomar recreational vehicles, passenger jets,
chartered aircraft ( contract carriers such as those operated by Charter Flight
Group operating at Palomar) and possibly Palomar employees and vendors. In
the Final PEIR, state what county does and does not include and why. If
county omits any of the noted data, provide it in the Final PEIR even if county
claims for some reason that the data is not needed so that the BOS may properly
compare the No Project alternative against county's preferred alternative.
20 Table Future Conditions • BRR 32. County's Omitted GHG Data. County does not show all motor vehicle
3.1.5-5 (2036) GHG GHG emissions but notes "Off-airport MV emissions were only calculated for net
Emissions Without increase in emissions." Omitting the data does not comply with CEQA.
Project
0 The PEIR must provide data to support all alternatives including the No Project
alternative. By omitting the data, staff shows its bias for the preferred
alternative.
0 Moreover, omitting the data omits a baseline that can be used to measure the
accuracy of county's PMP project calculations.
0 Also, this table omits any methane gas (CH4) data related to landfill emissions.
33
0 Correct these errors in the Final PEIR.
21 Tables Future Conditions • BRR 33. County's Missing GHG Methane Gas Emission Data. In the Final PEIR -
3.1.5-6 (2036) GHG as to Tables 3 .1.5-6 and 3 .1.5-7 GHG Emissions:
And 3.1.5-Emissions
7 Comparisons 0 Confirm that the tables do not include any methane gas emissions from the
Palomar Landfills.
0 Add the missing data for both the construction period [ while several hundred
piling holes are sunk and the methane gas collection system is either out of
service or collecting only partial landfill methane gas emissions] and the twenty-
year operational period as dynamic aircraft forces stress the pilings and landfill.
22 Tables Net and Total • BRR 34. County's Flawed GHG SP Population Methodology. As explained in BRR
3.1.5-7 GHG Emissions 24 above, county's use of the "2036 SP" population number of 1,552,067 is
and 3.1.5-"per person" unsupported and arbitrary and capricious. What county's tables at pages 3-75 to 3-78 -
10 and Emissions when contrasted with Table 2 entitled "Existing Conditions (2016) Emissions Inventory
3.1.5-11 in county's December 2017 Draft report -show is the following:
0 Existing 2016 Palomar GHG Level = 11,850 metric tons annually;
0 PMP 2036 PAL 1 GHG Level = 40,574 metric tons annually;
0 PMP 2036 PAL 2 GHG Level = 51,213 metric tons annually.
• In other words, county's project increases GHG emission levels by about 230% if its
conservative passenger estimate is reached and 330% if its next highest estimate is
reached.
• County then says that increases of this level are not significant.20
2° County would no doubt note that Palomar air carriers and passenger levels will grow even without the county's PMP projects and
therefore that Palomar GHG levels will increase even if the Board of Supervisors select no project. Possibly. However, over the last 5
years, several new air carriers have flopped at Palomar. Moreover, the FAA-approved passenger forecasts in the county 2018 -2036
34
• Now recall that -for the reasons outlined above -the PAL 1 and PAL 2 emissions fail
to include substantial other airport emissions [ non-air carrier airport users and landfill
GHG emissions], and the county's methodology becomes even more suspect.
• In the Final PEIR, explain why county ignores these substantial increases in GHG
emissions. Also, explain how much Palomar GHG emissions would increase if county
were able to convince the FAA to modify its 400-foot separation requirement between
aircraft on the runway and aircraft on taxiways, which would result in added idling of
FAA-rated C and D aircraft concurrently operating on the Palomar runway and
taxiway.21
23 Table County CAP • BRR 35. County's Limited and Near Worthless Mitigation Measures to Reduce
3.1.5-12 Reduction County Airport GHG Emissions.
Measures
0 At pages 3-79 to 3-80, county lists its mitigation measures to lesson GHG
emissions. In essence, county aims to reduce mileage of county employees
( carpooling?), switch energy sources, and build green buildings. These
measures have nothing to do with reducing aircraft-related emissions.
0 As noted above, one aircraft related measure that county could take to reduce
GHG emissions [and improve VNAP noise compliance] would be increasing the
intervals of aircraft taking off to avoid excessive aircraft taxiway idiling. This
should be easily achievable since county 20 years ago handled a peak of 286,000
annual operations and today handles about 155,000 annual operations.
0 In the Final PEIR, discuss the aircraft related GHG reduction and mitigation
measures that county is willing to explore related to aircraft operations.
PMP are much lower than county's optimistic numbers. "Optimistic" means not supported by the last 10 years of Palomar Airport
operations.
21 The FAA requires a 400-foot separation distance between runway and taxiway centerlines. County's preferred project alternative is to build a runway with an
approximately 362-foot rather than 400-foot separation. County says it will avoid safety concerns [the possibility of two large aircraft concurrently operating on
the runway and a taxiway striking wings) by imposing operating restrictions. In other words, county will hold aircraft with their engines idling to assure
concurrent operation oflarge aircraft does not occur. Such increased idling will increase GHG emissions.
35
0 IF county believes such measures are impossible, provide the specific contact
information for the FAA personnel who have advised such measures are
impossible so that we may pursue the issues with local members of Congress.
0 Explain in the Final PEIR why the Airport Deregulation Act and Clean Air Act
discussed in BRR 18 do not allow such county aircraft interval spacing on
county runways.
24 Appendix Energy and GHG • BRR 36. County fails to provide basic assumptions to make its Appendix H data
J Calculations for 16 and calculations understandable. Also, some calculated amounts are incorrect.
PMP Projects For instance:
0 PMP Projects 7 & 12 refer respectively to the 200-foot runway and Taxiway A
extension and to the Relocation/Extension RW 6-24. BUT we see no description
of the runway and taxiway width. Both length and width determine asphalt
quantities used and GHGs emitted.
0 FAA AC 150/5300-13A provides FAA runway design criteria. Appendix A to
this AC, Table A 7-9, provide the airfield requirements for FAA-classified
C/D/E-III airfields. The width specified for C and D -III runways is 150 feet.
0 County Appendix H reports for Project 7 an asphalt surface area of 27,000
square feet. A runway extension 200-feet long and 150-feet wide has a surface
area of 30,000 square feet. Note moreover that the foregoing dimensions are for
the runway extension only. Yet the Project 7 description is an extension for both
the runway and Taxiway A.
0 In the Final PEIR, discuss the foregoing issue, add information to Appendix H
showing runway and taxiway widths, and state what the proper calculation
should be, how it was arrived at, and how GHG emission levels change. Also
provide a revised project cost if the runway and taxiway area has been
miscalculated.
0 County Appendix H reports for Project 8, the relocation and extension of a
runway totaling 5700-feet, a square footage of 738,000 square feet. A runway
5700-feet long and 150-feet wide has a square footage of 855,000. In the Final
36
PEIR, discuss the foregoing issue, add information to Appendix H showing the
relocated runway width, and state what the proper calculation should be, how it
was arrived at, and how GHG emission levels change. Also provide a revised
project cost if the runway and taxiway area has been miscalculated.
25 Appendix Energy & GHG • BRR 37. County's PMP and PEIR Hide Supervisor Horn's Hidden Retaining Wall
J Calculations for for his 900-Foot Runway and Its Environmental Impacts.
PMP Projects 1 to
16: Project 4 0 County staff has gone to great lengths to hide Supervisor Horn's
WEST END unneeded $13,760,000 Palomar runway west end massive retaining wall.
RETAINING
WALL 0 This unneeded retaining wall drastically escalates project costs, interferes with
biological species, and increases air pollution, including GHG emissions. See
county's March PMP Table at page ES-11, shown following this Bender Table
Item 25 to understand the following discussion.
0 County's Table summarizes 16 proposed PMP project elements. The west end
retaining wall is hidden from the public and even from Board of Supervisor
members and is unneeded for the reasons below. No where do the 16 project
elements refer to a retaining wall.
• Runway West End & East End EMAS. Notice that the referenced
table refers to a runway west end EMAS costing $25 million and to an
east end EMAS costing $11,240,000.
• Virtually Identical EMASs. The two EMAS s are virtually identical.
They handle the same aircraft depending on whether aircraft take off
toward the west or east. The cost for both should be nearly the same. In
fact, the east side EMAS should cost more because it is in the middle of
the 19-acre Palomar Unit 3 landfill and may require some special
engineering. Otherwise ongoing landfill subsidence under the EMAS
will distort it.
• "Massa~ed Appendix J Hidden Retainine: Wall." The county
37
Appendix J "Near-term Project 4 -Construction of EMAS'' comprises 10
pages. Neither the Project 4 title nor the immediately following "Project
Characteristics" even refers to the retaining wall. Buried in the middle
of the 10 pages is a two-word reference in Section 3.0 "Construction
Detail" to a retaining wall. No dimensions are given. But we know the
wall costs about $13,760,000 (Total Project 4 cost of $25,000,000 -
$11,240,000 EMAS cost).
• Why is the West End Retaining Wall Unneeded and Why Would Its
Approval as a Project Element Violate CEQA?
• Horn's Insistence. Supervisor Hom made clear on the record at
the December 2015 Board of Supervisor meeting -which
considered the McClellan-Palomar runway Feasibility Study -
that he wanted a 900-foot runway extension, not an 800-foot
runway extension. The county consultant Kimley-Hom &
Associates, Inc. representative said that only about 840 feet were
available for an extension. Supervisor Hom opined that there
must be a way to make the extension 900-feet long.
• 800-Foot PMP & PEIR Project Alternative. Nonetheless, the
2018 -2038 [2016-2036?] PMP and PEIR repeatedly refer to
an 800-foot, not 900-foot runway extension.
• Horn's Folly. To appease Supervisor Hom, the consultant came
up with a way to add about 60 feet, namely to add the
$13,740,000 retaining wall. But this added 60 feet is not needed
to extend the runway 800-feet-which was the December 2015
BOS direction to the consultant.
• Why 900-Feet? Supervisor Hom has not said why he wants a
900-foot rather than 800-foot runway extension. But one airport
tenant -who makes 500 flights or less a year out of the project
208,000 forecasted flights -apparently has an aircraft, which if
38
taking off at maximum load to go to China -might benefit from
900-feet. It appears that Supervisor Horn wants to spend
$13,740,000 to favor one tenant who could just as easily leave for
China from Lindbergh Field .
•
0 In the Final PEIR, address all the issues above and explain:
• Why is the Palomar runway west end massive retaining wall required for
an 800-foot runway extension? Consultant has previously said no
retaining wall is needed to relocate the service road around the runway.
• What biological species and/or habitat are saved with no wall?
• How many GHG emissions are saved by not building this wall?
• To the extent that county claims the retaining wall is needed to
accommodate the service road around the runway:
• Explain why the retaining wall was not needed when Kimley-
Horn initially designed the 800-foot runway extension; and
• Explain why the west end service road can not simply be routed
through a 300 foot tunnel under the runway at a cost substantially
less than $13,760,000.
39
l'iiiiiM·N Airport Master Plan Updat•
Near-Term (:1:0-7 Years)
Relocation of Segmented Circle Pavement $150,000 Removal/Installation
Relocation of the Liohtina Vault Buildina Relocation 100 SF $575,000
Relocation of the Glideslope Building and Building Relocation ±360 SF $350,000 Antenna
Relocation of Windsock Equipment Pavement Removal ±760 SY $130,000
Construction of EMAS System serving EMAS ±580 SY RWY 24 (Includes Relocation of the VSR ±9, 100 SY $25,000,000
Vehide Service Road\
Relocation of ARFF Facililv ±4, 700 SF Facilitv $525,000
200' Extension of Existing Runway 06-24 t11,600SY $14,320,500 and Taxiwav A /Interim condition\
PhaeSublotal $28,730,000
Phaae Subtotat• I $41,050,500
Intermediate-Term (:1:8-12 Years)
Removal of North Apron and Taxiway N Pavement Removal ±43,0i~ i $684,000
Enhancement of Near-Term Auto Parl<ina ±800 SY of oavement ! $232,000
Removal of Fuel Farm on North Aoron ±25 000 GAL I $45 000
Preservation of area reserved for GA ±3 acres i TBD aircraft parkina
Passenger/Admin/Parking Facility ±4acres j TBD lmnrovements
Phau Subtotal I $961 000
Lang-Term (:1:13-20 Years)
800' e ocation/ xtension of • 4(i ±81,610 SY I $27,850,000 comPleted in one Phase l
RI E RWY06 2
Remove/Reconstruct Comector Taxiwavs ±13 000 SY I $1,760 000
Remove/Reconstruct TWY A ±39,070 SY $14 360,000
Construction of EMAS System serving ±580 SY $12,160.000 RWY06
Relocation of EMAS System serving RWY ±580 SY $11,240,000 24
Relocation of NAVAJOS {ILS. GS, MALSR, $2,800,000 PAPli
200· Relocation/Extension of Runway 06-
24 and Taxiway A {if completed ,n 2 $9,366,000
phases\
Additional 600' Relocation/Extension of
Runway 06-24 and Taxiway A {ii completed $30,960,000
in 2 nhasesl
Phase Subtotal 1200' Extension olua 800' Extenslonl $82646 000
Phase Subtotal IBOO' Extension) $70,170 000
.• •= ... . .
Total Estimated Prnnram Cost 1200' Extension olus 800' Extension) $110 337 000 I
Total Estimated Proaram Cost (BOO' Extension) $97861 000
Total Estimated Proaram Cost 1200' Extanalon Dlus 600' Extension\• $124 657 500 I
Total Estimated Proaram Cost 1800' Extension)• $112181,500
Source. K1mley~Horn. 2017 Includes 11ter1m 200 extension to exrstirlJ Runway 06-24 and Taxiway A
Executive Summary
40
26 §3.1.10 County says "Based • BRR 38. The quoted language is ambiguous and hence the number of
Energy Use on the estimated gallons of gasoline used for motor vehicles is unreliable.
& existing vehicle miles
Conservation traveled (VMT), 0 What does "patrons and tenants" mean? Does it include all on-airport
patrons and tenants of county employees and employees of airport tenants?
the Airport are 0 Does it include all vendors delivering items to the airport, for instance
estimated to consume the regular fuel trunks filling up the underground airport fuel tanks?
309,205 gallons of 0 Recall that in 2016, Palomar reported about 155,000 aircraft operations.
gasoline and diesel Does "patrons and tenants" include all people on these flights?
annually." Seep. 3-0 Recall that the county 2013 Palomar Runway Feasibility Study reported
111. 2,215 regional jobs created by Palomar (Slide 16 of County August 15,
2013 staff presentation to the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee.)
Note that county's numbers exclude vehicle trips by these people?
0 Using the county § 3 .1.10 energy figures, the pilots and passengers
aboard 155,000 aircraft in 2016 [and excluding on-airport employees and
excluding the 2,215 persons whose jobs depend on Palomar use],
allegedly used 309,305 gallons of fuel for their vehicles. Does this
309,305 figure make sense?
• If each aircraft had 1 passenger, then the pilot and the passenger
(310,000 total for 155,000 flights) each used 1 gallon of fuel for
their vehicles -assuming they made only 1 way trips to the
airport, not the usual arrangement.
• In short, county's estimated 309,205 gallons of fuel used for
motor vehicles seems highly unreliable. BUT if the number is
reliable, then it dispels county's§ 3.1.5 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Analysis suggestion (see multiple GHG tables
including Table 3.1.5-7) that the "catchment/user" area for
Palomar airport comprises 1,552,067 persons. If only 50,000
Palomar users travelled "county-wide" distances to reach
Palomar, they used far more than 1 gallon of fuel and county's
309,205 estimate is unreliable.
41
0 Note that the county environmental analysis must be as equally broad or
narrow as the county's economic analysis. The county can not in good
faith, or in compliance with CEQA, claim that Palomar creates 2,215
county wide jobs and then limit its analysis of fuel used by Palomar -
related motorists to only those on the airport.
0 In the Final PEIR, address the issues above and provide the following
information for 2016:
• The number of county employees stationed at Palomar Airport;
• The number of county employees periodically visiting Palomar
Airport;
• The number of tenant employees at the Airport;
• The number of vendors and frequency of vendor trips serving the
Airport;
• The number of pilots and frequency of using the airport;
• The number of users on aircraft using the airport including those
on air carriers, charter carriers, corporate aircraft, private
recreational vehicles, and helicopters using the airport;
• The number of regional jobs dependent on Palomar Airport;
• The total number of miles traveled by all the groups above;
• The total number of gallons of gasoline and diesel used by all the
groups above;
• The levels of GHG emissions and of other air quality pollutants
produced and the mitigation measures county is adopting to
reduce them.
26 County GHG • BRR38A . County says it will reduce air quality pollutants by using electric
A Reduction Measure T-vehicles. Electric vehicles reduce air quality emissions including GHG
3.5 Increasing emissions at the point of use, namely when the car is driven. But several studies
Electrical Vehicles
42
show that the power plants producing the electricity for electric vehicles produce
as much or more pollution than vehicles using fossil fuels.22 In the Final PEIR,
explain (i) which power plants generate the electric power for vehicles driven
within 100 miles of Palomar, (2) whether these power plants rely on fossil fuels
including coal, (3) when the power plant was upgraded to remove air quality
pollutants, and (4) the specific data that shows that electric vehicles receiving
electric power from these plants will in fact create less pollution than non-
electric cars.
27 § 3.1.10.2.1 Construction-Related • BRR 39. Wasteful Construction & Demolition. County says: "A significant
Energy Use & Energy Use impact related to energy resources would occur if the Proposed Project would:
Conservation Result in the wasteful and inefficient use of nonrenewable resources during the
construction phase of the Proposed Project. " County proposes (See 2018-203 8
PMP page ES-11):
0 Within 7 years to spend:
• $14,320,500 to extend the Palomar runway 200-feet;
• $25,000,000 to build a west runway EMAS AND THEN
0 Within 10 more.years to throw away the foregoing $39,320,500 and
spend $70 million more to relocate the entire runway and taxiways and
navigational lighting 120 feet north EVEN THO COUNTY CONC
EDES;
• Palomar Airport will handle by 2036 30% fewer aircraft than
county handled at Palomar twenty years ago; and
• The physical life of new airport runway construction is 20 to 30
years; and
22 See, for instance, Ohio State Abstract: "Will Electric Vehicles Really Reduce Pollution?" available at
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/voytishlong.html
43
• FAA-awarded Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants
anticipate that an FAA-financed improvement shall remain in
place for at least 20' years.
• In the Final PEIR explain why the construction of a 200-foot runway extension
and west runway end EMAS is needed and why substantial quantities of fuel
will be consumed and GHG emissions and other air pollutants created when
such improvements will be destroyed so soon and when:
0 Even a 200-foot runway e:xctension would not accomplish Supervisor
Horn's apparent desire to allow one airport tenant jet a week to fly to
China without refueling after leaving Palomar; and
0 The only air carrier foreseeably in Palomar's future (California Pacfici
Airlines) stated on the record at the PAAC meeting that it does not need
a runway extension to operate even though it ultimately plans to fly to 5
to 10 cities.
0 Explain what specific fuel efficiency, GHG emission, and general air
pollution mitigation measures county will commit to offset the unneeded
construction and demolition.
28 § 3.1.10 Construction Related • BRR 40. Missing Energy Calculations Related to Drilling Several Hundred
Energy Use & Energy Use, pp. 3-117 very Deep Landfill Holes. We have examined new county Appendix J, entitled
Conservation to3-119 "Energy Modeling Calculations" closely including by searching the terms
"bore," "augur," and "drill." The term "bore" occurs in Project Phase 7 related
to the 200-foot runway extension but does not appear in Project Phase 12, which
involves the runway relocation and construction of a new 800-foot runway
extension in the middle of the 19-acre Unit 3 Palomar runway east end closed
landfill. It appears that as to Phase 12, county included no energy calculations
related to county drilling several hundred holes from 15 feet to 40 feet deep. In
the Final PEIR, state:
0 the total number of holes that county estimates it will need to drill
44
through the landfill for Project Phase 12 involving the relocation of the
runway and addition of 800 feet of runway on grade beams on piles over
the closed landfill;
0 the estimated depth of the holes;
0 the number of augurs/drill equipment that will be needed;
0 the estimated time to drill all the needed holes;
0 the "construction" period for such holes;
0 the number of cranes that will be required to lift the "rebar cages" into
each of the holes drilled prior to the time of casting the pilings in the
holes;
0 the amount of fuel required for such cranes; and
0 the total amount of fuel expended to construct the 800-foot addition over
the Unit 3 closed landfill.
29 § 3.1.10 Fuel Consumption • BRR 41. Internally Consistent County Aviation Fuel Use Information. We
Energy Use & Comparison PAL 1 & find these two tables confusing, and likely unreliable. The Tables provide:
Conservation; PAL2
Tables 3.1.10-Table 3.1.10-3. Fuel Consumption Comparison (PAL 1)
3 and 3.1.10-4 (gallons) ·
Scenarios Aircraft APUIGSE Gasoline Dinel TOTAL
No Project 535.471 70.100 298.355 16.589 920.515
PAL 1 sn.513 83.273 301.910 16,786 1,079.482
Difference 142,042 13,173 3,555 197 158,967
Table 3_"1_'10-4. Fuel C-onauimpt.ion Comparison (PAL 2)
(gallon•)
Se•.-..rioa Alrcra#I; APU.IGSI!: o-oe, ... D _ _, TOTAL t-.k> Pr0:1ect 535,47., 70,1.00 298.355 '16.589 920 S'tS
PAL2 704 300 95291 569,432 3"1.660 1,-400.683
Diff•r•nc• "168.829 25,"19"1 27"1,077 'IS.07"'1 480.'168
N
Notice that Table 3.1.10-3 refers to 535,471 gallons of aviation fuel used by aircraft
45
for the No Project alternative and 677,513 gallons if county achieves its 2036 PAL 1
passenger forecast level of 304,673 annual enplanements. Yet the county
McClellan-Palomar Official website on July 5, 2018 under "Fuel Flowage" [
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/airports/palomar.html ] gave the following data for just
the first quarter of 2018:
Sales by Supplier/FBO @ CRQ
Jet A 1000s of gallons delivered
2018 1st Quarter
Fuel Supplier Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total FBO
AvFuel 166 286 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic Avia / PAC 691
Epic 145 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jet Source 160
Ascent 67 75 SCIF / Magellan 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
We5tern 29 32 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Western Flight 91
Tor.I 401 408 331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1146
46
Sales by Supplier/FBO@ CRQ
AvGas 1000s of gallons delivered
2018 1st Quarter
Fuel Supplier
FBO Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Ascent 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 SCIF / Magellan
Western 18 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 Western Flight
True North Fuel 3 0 0 0 0 0 Western Flight 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 29 24 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Notice that the official county website reports the fuel flowage in thousands of
gallons ( 1 OOOs ). So for just the 1st Q of 2018 county reported 1,146,000 of Jet A
fuel and 75,000Av Gas. It seems that county is reporting aviation fuel levels 2 to
8 times higher than county reports in recirulated Table 3.1.10-3 above.
Similarly, the county Palomar website data differs materially for county's
comparison of the No Project v. PAL 2 scenario.
In the Final PEIR, (i) describe the source of the data that county used to prepare
Tables 3.1.10-3 and 3.1.10-4, (ii) explain the discrepancies between the county
PEIR data and the county website data, and (iii) provide corrected Tables as
necessary.
ALSO EXPLAIN WHETHER THE AIRCRAFT GALLONS THAT COUNTY
USED TO CALCULATE ITS GHG EMISSIONS IN REVISED DRAFT PEIR
SECTION 3.1.5 ENTITLED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE
SIMILARLY FLAWED AND REQUIRE RECALCULATION.
47
30 § 3.1.10 Fuel Consumption • BRR 42. We incorporate the comments in BRR 41 here. Another way of
Energy Use & Comparison PAL 1 & testing the county-provided Palomar aircraft fuel use data for accuracy is to
Conservation; PAL2 compare the data given against the number of Palomar Airport annual operations
Tables 3.1.10-and the aircraft mix [A, B, C, or D] -which determines the miles per gallon [A
3 and 3 .1.10-4 aircraft] or gallons per mile [B, C, and D aircraft].
0 County says in Table 3.1.10-3 that with the No Project altemative23,
Palomar Aircraft used only 535,471 gallons of aviation fuel in a year.
0 County forecasted about 16,900 business jet operations in 2016 [general
aviation B/C/D aircraft].24 County also forecasted about 12,410 air
carrier [regularly scheduled carriers of passengers. Hence, about 30,000
of Palomar's 155,000 operations in 2016 were B, C, and D sized aircraft.
0 As shown in the table on the next page, FAA-rated aircraft weighing less
than 12,500 pounds usually get roughly 10 miles per gallon. In contrast,
corporate jets and air carrier jets in the B, C, and D categories [ weighing
20,000 to 90,000 pounds] average 1 to 2 GALLONS per mile.
0 According to county, county needs to extend the Palomar runway so jets
can fly farther, as far as to China. But as seen from the chart below, most
B, C, and D aircraft already using Palomar can easily reach distances up
to 2500 miles -while gulping 1 to 2 gallons of aviation fuel per mile and
without needing a longer runway.
0 Based on the foregoing information, consider the table below, which
shows how much fuel 155,000 Palomar aircraft operations would require
under ultra conservative assumptions.
0 Conclusion 1: BOTH the actual Palomar fuel flowage delivered in 2016,
as taken from the county's own website as discussed in BRR 41 above,
23 County's use of the term No Project alternative is confusing unless county references a specific year. In 2016 Palomar had about 155,000 operations [aircraft
flights]. In 2036 -without a runway extension -Palomar may have 180,000 operations if the air flight industry recovers to pre 2006 levels. As county
recognizes in its 2018 PMP, Palomar growth continues with or without a runway project. Hence, when referring to the "No Project" alternative, county should
clarify what it means.
24 See Table SA at page 8.2 of County's 2011/2012 Palomar Runway Feasibility Study.
48
and a common sense look at how much fuel the 155,000 Palomar flights
required in 2016, show that county's Recirculated PMP Section 3 .1.10
entitled "Energy Use and Conservation" is not accurate.
0 Conclusion 2: Because county's fuel usage calculations are in error, its
GHG calculations and general air quality calculations are in error.
• In the Final PEIR, address all the issues above and in the tables below, explain
the discrepancies, and provide the corrected numbers. Also, explain why
recirculation of the county Energy Efficiency analysis does not require
recirculation given county's errors.
49
A Class Aircraft Max fuel lb : Max Fuel gal Max NM Range· Gal Per Mile
Beechcraft Bonanza Raytheon Beech Bonanza 36 I 619! 92 920 9.97 !
Piper W;imor PA ·28 Cherokee Series ! so 4oS 9.lOI i
! '
Cirrus SR22 EADS Socats TB9 Tampio I 42 556 13.33 I !
' i I
I
B Cla,s Aircraft
,, • o,,.,,, ,, ' Beechcr.lft Baron Raythe-on Beteh 8,Hon 58 I 390! 58 1,480. 15.46 ! ---·---, -~·--
Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign ! 11,235: 1,674 3,200 1.91 ! I
Embraer EM8120 Br.1s1ll1.1 i 24,0lOi 3,S81 1,150 0.49 !
I ! .
C Oass Aircraft
·t •· ·•
Cessna 750 Citation X B,060i 1,946 3,460 1.78!
,,,,,,,,, "" .-o<o,oe>-e~"""t""'• .. ,~.---~•····· "_.,,., ... ,_
8ombard,er CRJ-700 l9,4S0i 2.899 1,434 0.49 ! -· -"""t_,._,o,;-~-----w~•~• ·-·--·--~--~
Embraer ERJ170 I 9,335! 1,391 2,150 LSS I i
,,.,,,,,
0 Clau Aircraft
Gulfstream GV 450 29,500! 4,396 4,lSO 0.99 I , .. , ,,, ., ... , "---·+ ·"--h·,--~~--·-· ., ~" --•·=···~-·"'"'
§ulfatream G 550 (Not on the List)
r
41,300! 6J~S. _ 6,750 1.1{ I
' ~ ., . .. r """···-·
Gulfstream G 650 44,200! 6,587 7,f'HJ 1.061
I I ! • .. ,,
HeUcopters l '
Sikorsky SH-60 Sea hawk 2,040: 304 450 US!
Robin~on R44 Raven 279! 42 300. 7.22 ! -·--. --~ --
50
Bender Comparison of 2016 No Project Aircraft Fuel Use with County Estimate
FAA Allocation of Assumed Annual Gallons of Total 2016
Aircraft 155,000 Flights Distances Traveled Aviation Annual Fuel
Category Among FAA per flight Fuel Required in
Categories Required Gallons
I A 125,000 I 00 miles/per fli!!ht 10 per fli!!ht 1,250,000
2 B
3 C 30,000 I 000 miles per flight lO00per 30,000,000
4 D (combined B, C, D) flight
Total 2016 Gallons of Palomar Aircraft Fuel Required Using illtra
Conservative Assumotions 31 250.000
Yet County's Tables 3.1.10-3 and 3.1.10-4 in its Revised Draft PEIR circulated in June
2018 in its Section 3.1.10 entitled Energy Use and Conservation say Palomar Aircraft
used only 535,471 gallons under the No Project scenario and 677,513 and 704,300
gallons respectively for the forecasted increased passenger flights. The above figures
show:
• Actual existing Palomar fuel use under the No Project alternative is far, far higher
than the recirculated PEIR discloses.
• Even if the average distance for the 30,000 air carrier and corporate flights were
cut to 500 miles, the Gallons of aviation fuel for A, B, C, and D aircraft would be
16,250,000 rather than the county-listed 535,471.
• Note also that county in PEIR Table 4-1 (March PEIR circulated) entitled "Air
Ca"ier Operations Forecast-PAL 2" forecasts 27,740 total commercial
operations by 2036. Such commercial air carrier operations do not include the
corporate B, C, and D aircraft flying as far as China.
31 New County County Depictions of BRR43. County's Confusing RPZ Diagrams: Non-Conformance to FAA
RPZ Figures Runway Protection Standard Diagrams. The county method of describing Runway Protection Zones
Zone Areas. in its original PEIR and recirculated PEIR drawings is confusing for several reasons.
To see why, look at the below FAA drawing, which depicts a runway end departure
RPZ and approach RPZ in the same drawing.
51
9:2K/2012 AC 150/5300-13,\
' I ------:----- -l BEGINNING OF APPROACH RPZ, RUNWAY 10
\
\
I
\
\
END OF
I
<r.
EXTENDED
RUNWAY
END OF DEPARTURE RPZ,
RUNWAY28
l
I
I
RUNWAY10
APPROACH~Z
RUNWAY28
DEPARTURE RPZ
APPROACH RPZ, ,_....,.I--200 FT (61 MJ
RUNWAY10
BEGINNING OF
DEPARTURE RPZ.
RUNWAY 28
LEGEND
200 FT
(61 M]
PHYSICAL END OF RUNWAY
TORA ENDS PRIOR TO
PHYSICAL END OF
RUNWAY BASED ON
TAKEOFF DIRECTION
AFPROACH RPZ. ----
DEPARTURE RPZ ----TORA
Figure 3-18. A11proach and departure RPZs where the Takeoff Run Available (TORA) is
less than the Takeoff Distance Available (TODA)
52
32 New County County depiction of • Now compare the FAA drawing to the county drawings in the recirculated PEIR
RPZ Figures RPZs (con'd) section called "Figures associated with Runway Protection Zones." County
(con'd) drawings do not say whether they refer to departure or approach RPZs. Readers
are left to guess. Nor is it clear that county provides drawings for both scenarios
( departure and approach).
• In the Final PEIR (i) confirm that county has included drawings for all
departure and all approach RPZs for aircraft taking off and landing in all weather
conditions [i.e. departure and approach for Runway 24 and Runway 06]; (ii)
either substitute the FAA-approved format or more clearly label the county
diagrams to explain whether each diagram shows (aa) Runway 24 or Runway
06, (ii) departure RPZs and approach RPZs, and (iii) the assumptions made as to
where the takeoff and landing runway thresholds are located. 27 Also assure that
county provides information for the runway east end with and without an
installed EMAS system since an east end EMAS will not be installed for 10 to
15 years and perhaps never. Also, explain how the length of the RP Zs which
25 FAA AC l 50/5300-l 3A in paragraphs I 05(f), 2 l 3a., 322 d. and especially 310.
26 RPZs: Areas on the ground in which development is minimized to protect persons and property from aircraft operations, especially crashes.
27 Palomar landing thresholds for aircraft landing from the east [typical] and from the west ["Santa Ana winds] change when an EMAS is installed to assure there
is a buffer area between the EMAS and runway to minimize the chances of landing aircraft flipping in the EMAS resulting from too high an approach speed.
53
county has depicted vary with aircraft type and airport instrument requirements.
See the footnoted FAA approach and departure table below.28
• BRR 44. Incomplete RPZ Drawing Legends. In addition most of the
Recirculated Drawings showing proposed runway modifications are confusing.
Drawings 4-2a, 4-3a, 4-4a, and 4.5a all show yellow cross-hatched diamond
shaped areas; but no Drawing legend explains what this cross hatching means.
The only drawing Legend reference to cross-hatched areas are to blue EMAS
areas. Perhaps the yellow cross-hatched diamonds show demolished areas. The
reader is left to guess. CEQA requires that governmental entities present
information in an understandable way. County fails this test. Explain in the
Final PEIR what the drawing yellow cross-hatched diamond shaped areas mean
and recirculate the drawings so the public can comment intelligently.
54
AC 150/5300-13A 9/28/2012
Table 3-2. Approach/departure standards table
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS* Slope/ Runway Type Feet (Meters) ocs A B C D E
Approach end of runways expected to serve small . 0 120 300 500 2,500 15: 1 1 airplanes with approach speeds less than 50 knots. (Visual (0) (37) (91) ( 152) (762) runways only, day/night)
Approach end ofrunways expected to serve small 0 250 700 2,250 2,750 20:1 2 airplanes with approach speeds of 50 knots or more. (0) (76) (213) (686) (838) (Visual runways only, day/night)
Approach end of runways expected to serve large airplanes 0 400 1000 1,500 8,500 20:1 3 (Visual day/night); or instrument minimums~ 1 statute (0) (122) (305) (457) (2591) mile (1.6 km) (day only).
Approach end of runways expected to support instrument 200 400 3,800 10,000 2 0 20:1 4 night operations, serving approach Category A and B (61) (122) (1158) (3048) (0) aircraft only. 1
Approach end of runways expected to support instrument 200 800 3,800 10,000 2 0 20:l 5 night operations serving greater than approach Category B (61) (244) (1158) (3048) (0) aircraft. 1
Approach end of runways expected to accommodate 200 800 3,800 10,000 2 0 20:1 6 instrument approaches having visibility minimums~ 3/4 (61) (244) (l 158) (3048) (0) but < 1 statute mile (> 1.2 km but< 1.6 km), day or night.
Approach end ofrunways expected to accommodate 200 800 3,800 10,000 2 0 34: l 7 instrument approaches having visibility minimums < 3/4 (61) (244) (1158) (3048) (0) I statute mile ( 1.2 km).
Approach end ofrunways expected to accommodate Runway
10,000 2 0 width+ 1520 0 30: 1 83.5.6.7 approaches with vertical guidance (Glide Path (0) 200 (463) (3048) (0) Qualification Surface [GQS]). (61)
Departure runway ends for all instrument operations. 04 Sec Figure 3-4. 40:1 9 (0)
28 * The letters arc keyed to those shown m Figure 3-2.
55
33 New County County depiction of BRR 45. Unsubstantiated Size Differences Between Existing RPZs and Future
RPZ Figures RPZs (con'd)-RPZs. In the figures depicted, county shows existing and future RPZs. County uses
(con'd) ALL FIGURES blue to show existing and purple to show future. Nearly always, county depicts the
existing trapezoidal RPZ areas as larger than the future areas. In the Final PEIR,
(i) explain how the RPZ trapezoidal areas will be smaller when county lengthens
and/or relocates the runway north about 120 feet and attracts larger, faster aircraft
and (ii) provide the assumptions, data, and analysis that county relies on to reach
these conclusions. If the recirculated RPZ drawings are incorrect [ when comparing
before and after RPZ sizes], recirculate the drawings again for comment.
34 New County County depiction of BRR 46. Continued Confusing County PMP Project Alternative Terminology.
RPZ Figures RPZs (con'd)-The purpose of the PEIR circulation is to inform the public of impacts of the project
(con'd) ALL FIGURES county proposes. County's inconsistent use of terminology thoroughly confuses the
public for these reasons:
• County in Table 4-1 entitled "Comparison of Project Alternatives to
Project Objectives" refers to:
0 its Proposed Project in the 1st evaluation column as "D-III
Modified Standards Compliance Alternative;"
0 to a rejected project in evaluation column 5 as "D-III Modified
Standards Alternative;"
• County in the Recirculated Revised Draft PEIR table entitled "Figures
associated with Runway Protection Zones" refers to Figure numbers 1-4 to
4-6b. County refers to multiple D-III alternatives including:
0 D-111 Modified Standards Alternative in Figure 4-3A;
0 D-111 Modified Standards Alternative Runway Protection Zone in
Figure 4-3B;
0 D-111 On-Property Alternative in Figure 4-4a; and
0 D-111 On-Property Alternative Runway Protection Zones in Figure 4-
56
46.
• NOWHERE in the recirculated tables does county refer to its Table 4-1
Proposed Alternative: "D-III Modified Standards Compliance
Alternative." Hence, county has provided no RPZ information about its
preferred project alternative, a fatal error. County's failure is especially
noteworthy because multiple commentators in their March 2018 PEIR
comments (including the city of Carlsbad and the Benders) noted county's
confusing terminology. It is apparent that before rushing to recirculate
certain PEIR sections that county did not read the comments received 10
57
weeks ago.
• County further confuses the issue by referring to its Preferred
Alternative in the March 2018 PMP at page ES-9 as the "C-111 Modified
Standards Compliance.29 See the PMP/PEIR table below.
• For the above reasons, we have no idea what RPZs county links to its
Preferred Table 4-1 Alt and the RPZs need to be corrected, properly
identified, and recirculated.
• In the Final PEIR address these issues. Explain how any Board of
Supervisor member or any member of the public or any reviewing court
could reasonably determine what county's true preferred project alternative
is from the PMP and PEIR county staff prepared. If county staff cannot
explain this, then a complete PMP and PEIR need to be recirculated.
58
McClellan.Palomar Alrpor1 Airport Master Plan Update
below. Once the full extension is constructed EMAS would be needed on the east end as well to provide
the required length of safety area.
Shffl Runway
One of the projects identified in the Airport Master Plan Update is to shift the Runway to the north by 123-
feet to increase the distance between the runway and the taxiway. The shift will improve safety for
aircraft types currently and projected lo operate at the Airport by providing additional wingtip clearance
during simultaneous runway/taxiway operations.
Completion of this project would eliminate the north aircraft parking area because this would fall into the
new Runway Object Free Area. This would require relocating 30+ aircraft currently parked in this
location. It would also require removal of the self-service fuel facility on the north side of the airfield that
is used by those aircraft.
Runway Extension
McClellan-Palomar Airport is home to a wide range of aircraft, including business jets. The existing
runway length of 4.897 feet does not provide aircraft operators that currently use the Airport the same
benefits they would have with a longer runway. This is because these aircraft need more runway length
than currently exists to takeoff fully-fueled and loaded, which would then alow them to fly farther and be
more competitive in national and global markets. A business case analysis was completed as part of the
Feasibility Study to aid in the assessment of an extension versus no extension. The McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan Update includes a runway extension option of up to 800 feet. This length was
selected because it is the longest that could be accommodated on existing Airport land wrthout the need
to purchase addmonal land. An extension could be built in phases depending on funding availabihty. The
Airport Master Plan also explores an interim option of extending the runway 200' in the current location.
Another benefit ci a runway extension identified by the study is that rt would reduce aircraft noise for
residential communities west of the Airport. Shifting the beginning of the runway further east would mean
aircraft would increase flight elevation sooner. Aircraft would be hi!jier, and therefore quieter to those on
the ground, as they fly west towards the coast. This would result in the footprint for noise sensitive areas
moving east over industrial-use properties and even farther away from residential properties to the
southwest. However, because the landing threshold would remain in the current location, noise lo the
east of the Airport from landing aircraft would not increase.
Larger corporate aircraft often stop and refuel at nearby airports with longer runways such as San Diego
International Airport in order to reach their destination. This poses a significant inconvenience to
operators, leads to lower fuel sales at CRQ, and increases the amount of fuel aircraft consume and
emissions released into the environment.
Proposed runway extensions of varying lengths are identified in the Alternatives Analysis; for the
purposes ofthis Airport Master Plan Update, in order to accommodate existing and projected operating
aircraft at CRO including the anticipated future design aircraft (Gulfstream G650), an extension of up to
800 feet is recommended to provide the Airport with approximately 5,700 feel of runway length. Longer
options were considered but determined to be infeasible because, with the change to the preferred option
of •••••••• I Compliance alternative, any extension longer than 800 feet would require
purchasing land around the Airport in order to comply with FAA safety requirements.
N-Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility
One of the specific components of this Airport Master Plan Update is to identify alternatives for the
relocation of the existing ARFF facility. The existing facility is a canopy structure. A new proposed ARFF
facility would be constructed lo "Index B" standards identified in FAA guidance documents. The
recommended site is located south of the existing Airport traffic control tower and west of an access road
29 Execullve Summary
59
35 New County County depiction of BRR47. County Fails to Correlate the Project RPZs to Actual Properties
RPZ Figures RPZs (con'd)-Impacted. County says in its March 2018 PEIR:
(con'd) ALL FIGURES
---Chapter 2 Significant Environmental Effects
Analysis
The SDCRAA is the responsible agency within San Diego County for regulating land uses within
the AIAs of 16 public-use and military airports. As part of that responsibility, the SDCRAA
approved an ALUCP for the Airport, which was adopted on January 25, 2010 and amended
twice on March 4. 2010 and December 1, 2011. However, because the Proposed Project
includes improvements on airport property, the ALUCP's land use authority does not apply since
all uses and future improvements are regulated by FAA.
As a component of the Mastpzer Plan Update. the Proposed Project would include shifting the
runway north and extending the runway's east end. As such. the associated safety areas.
including the RPZs would result in a corresponding shift. As part of the proposed improvements,
land within RPZs should be secured at the earliest opportunity, but are not required to be
secured prior to implementation of the Master Plan Update. Lands located within RPZs be
sought overtime as opportunities arise. However. the marginal shift in RPZs would not render
existing or approved land uses incompatible with an applicable ALUCP or constitute a hazard to
aviation. The Airport Master Plan Update further describes how the Proposed Project would
comply with FAA design standards and therefore, would not introduce new or increased safety
hazards to people in the Airport vicinity. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a
significant airport hazard.
2.3.2.4 Emergency Response Plans
• As just quoted, county says " ... [B}ecause the Proposed Project includes
improvements on airport property, the ALUCP 's land use authority does not
apply since all uses and future improvements are regulated by the FAA."
0 What the county intended to say might be accurate. What county did say
is inaccurate. The SDRAA ALUC has notified the county that before the
county presents its PMP and PEIR to the Board of Supervisors, county
must file an application with the ALUC to determine how the proposed
county 2018 -203 8 PMP impacts the noise and safety areas (including
the RP Zs) around Palomar Airport. Accordingly, the ALUC does have
60
the authority pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code to require
county to obtain ALUC review of the impacts of its proposed PMP
projects.
0 In the Final PEIR, clarify the accurate relationship between the county
and the ALUC.
• The quoted language above also says: "However, the marginal shift in RPZs
would not render existing or approved land uses incompatible with an
applicable ALUCP or constitute a hazard of existing or approved land uses
incompatible with an applicable ALUCP or constitute a hazard to aviation."
[Emphasis added.]
0 The quoted statement is misleading. Of course "approved land uses will
not be incompatible with an applicable ALUCP" because the city of
Carlsbad will not approve a land use that does not comply with AL UCP
restrictions (such as number of employees permitted in a structure who
might be hurt by a crashing aircraft.)
0 County's statement implies that PMP projects will not adversely impact
property owners adjacent to Palomar Airport. That may be true as to
existing uses and buildings in place. It is not necessarily true as to empty
land. This became abundantly clear when owners of property at the west
end of the Palomar runway [Durkins[ appeared before the Carlsbad
Council a few months ago and noted that ALUC occupancy restrictions
in the noise/safety zones resulting from Palomar use had caused them to
lose more than $1 million because an expensive office building
constructed was now limited to low occupancy level uses and storage.
0 Moreover, RP Zs are only the first of five areas relevant to analysis by the
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Land Use Committee
(ALUC). The ALUC looks at five different noise and safety zones near
Palomar Airport to determine how land use around the airport should be
restricted. County's PEIR fails to discuss how the PMP projects impact
61
the other four ALUC noise and safety zones.
• In the Final PEIR:
0 Identify (i) the property owners along the entire Palomar airport
perimeter within 500 feet of the north and south sides of the airfield
edges [ mainly impacted by the requirement that certain areas had to be
kept clear to avoid D-III aircraft using the runway and taxiways] and (ii)
the property owners whose property lies within the areas of the revised
RPZs and/or potentially within the ALUC revised McClellan-Palomar
Land Use Compatibility Noise and Safety Zones at both ends of the
extended and/or relocated Palomar runway.
0 Identify (i) the property owners who will be given actual notice of the
impact of PMP projects on their property use and (ii) the county zoning
and planning and land use provisions that require such notice.
0 Describe how extending the Palomar runway and/or shifting it north 120
feet impacts the other four ALUC-designated noise and safety zones,
whose size varies with the size of Palomar and the size of aircraft using
Palomar.
36 New County County depiction of • BRR 48. Missing County RPZ Information Related to Presence or Absence
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements of Retaining Walls.
(con'd) and RPZs (con'd)-
FIGURE 1-5 0 Figure 1-5 shows the PMP Conceptual Development Phases. It does not
show the location, size, or dimensions of the west runway $13. 7 million
retaining wall, apparently part of the county's construction of a Runway
24 EMAS system. In the Final PEIR, add this information, which will be
relevant in part to (i) determine the extent of destruction of biological
habitat and to (ii) disclose county's intent related to construction of a
900-foot, rather than 800 foot, runway extension -which was beyond the
scope of the PMP PEIR analysis. In other words, do county RPZ
62
diagram dimensions presume a west end EMAS ONLY WITH a
retaining wall which would mean that county is adopting a plan for a
900-foot proposed runway rather than the maximum 800-foot
alternative listed in the PEIR analysis, a CEQA violation.
0 Also, Figure 1-5 does not show the location, dimensions, or size of the
proposed county retaining wall along the southeast comer of the airport,
which is relevant to the size and orientation of the RP Zs.
0 Also, Figure 1-5 does not refer to the FAA relocation of navigation aids
on the NORTHEAST CORNER OF ECR AND PAR, which will require
modifications of the lease between the FAA and county and payment of
about $8.5 million in construction/installation cost (according to the PMP
project executive summary). Recall that CEQA requires an assessment
of all project impacts, direct and indirect, and county cannot operate
extended runways and conversion to a D-III airport without the
modification to the navigation lights and related equipment, which will in
tum determine the correct RPZ area.
0 In the Final PEIR:
• Discuss all the issues listed above and
• Show the difference in the Palomar runway west end RPZs with
and without the west end retaining wall.
37 New County County depiction of • BRR49 . County Figure 4-1 Deficiencies.
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements
(con'd) and RPZs (con'd)-0 Revised Figure 4-la is entitled "B-11 Enhanced Alternative."
FIGURE 4-la
0 Its "Legend" does not identify the meaning of the yellow lines.
Presumably the land owned by the county. In the Final PEIR, correct
63
the figure Legend to be complete.
0 The Figure refers to a total runway extension of 900-feet [200-feet plus
700-feet]. County does NOT analyze the environmental impacts of this
alternative in the PEIR, though county makes an occasional 900-foot
reference. Since the PEIR must analyze all alternative projects, in the
Final PEIR, correct Figure 4-la to refer to a maximum of 800-foot
runway extension.
0 If in the Final PEIR, county retains the 900-foot reference, provide
sufficient detail in the Final PEIR for court review including all PEIR
and PMP sections in which county analyzed environmental impacts of a
900-foot runway extension including the growth-inducing impacts of
such an extension. Be consistent with what the FAA has said about
growth impacts of lengthening runways.
0 The Figure [by its east runway red line projections] indicates an RSA for
the B-II Enhanced runway but does NOT show an east end EMAS. The
FAA Airport Design Manual [ AC 150/5300-13A] requires either al 000-
foot RSA or 350-foot EMAS when the airport "critical design aircraft"
are C and D aircraft with more than 500 annual airport operations - a fact
county concedes. 30 If county extends the Palomar runway either 800 feet
or 900 feet eastward, there is no room for an east end 1000-foot RSA. In
the Final PEIR correct Figure 4-1 b to indicate a B-II Enhanced runway
east end EMAS instead of an RSA or explain (i) how county complies
with the FAA Airport Design Manual and (ii) the FAA contact who has
confirmed that the county using a Palomar runway east end RSA
3° FAA has allowed county to operate as a 8-11 airport even though the actual current design aircraft is a C-III aircraft because county has been "grandfathered"
in as an existing airport with an existing runway. Altering the runway invokes the current FAA requirements, which means either a I 000-foot east end Runway
Safety Area or a 350-foot EMAS.
64
substantially shorter than 1000-feet for a 5800-foot runway handling
10,000 to 30,000 C and D aircraft annual meets FAA design
requirements. 31
0 In the Final PEIR, explain how close a B-11 Enhanced RSA end and/or
EMAS end will be to the thousands of cars that transit El Camino Real
daily. It appears a proper RSA end and/or EMAS end would be less than
200-feet from ECR traffic. Explain the added environmental and human
risk to an aircraft crashing onto ECR. Also, explain what runway width
county proposes and why. The FAA Design Manual does not require a
B-11 runway to have a 150-foot width. A standard 100-foot witdth would
reduce the runway cost by a third.
38 New County County depiction of • BRR 50. Figure 4-1 b General Deficiencies .
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements
(con'd) and RPZs (con'd)-0 Revised Figure 4-1 b. This figure, in four quadrants, shows different
FIGURE 4-lb runway end scenarios and depicts existing RPZ areas. The size of RP Zs
varies with the size of aircraft using the airport. RPZs for B aircraft are
smaller than RPZs for C and D aircraft. The existing and future critical
design aircraft for Palomar are C and D aircraft. Palomar is now
classified as a B-11 airport but handles FAA rated C and D aircraft.
0 In the Final PEIR,
• (i) State whether the RPZ distances and areas shown in each of
the four quadrants are based on B aircraft or C or D aircraft;
• (ii) State why county chose the distances and areas it did
considering the inherent conflict of C and D aircraft using (aa) an
existing B-11 runway as contrasted with (bb) C and D aircraft
31 Notice that Figure 4-la does not correctly depict the RSA [see red lines]. The red lines may be correct for a 200-foot runway extension. But they are not
correct for a 900-foot [200 + 700-foot] runway extension. The Runway and Runway Safety Area may not overlap.
65
using an extended or relocated runway -which must meet the
current FAA Airport Design requirements in AC 150/5300-13A.
0 Revised Figure 4-1 b is deficient for at least two reasons.
• First, it has no scale so the dimensions depicted cannot be
determined and compared against FAA requirements, which leads
to the problem described immediately above.
• Second, the drawing is not superimposed over actual Carlsbad
properties; nor is there an accompanying list of properties
affected. So Carlsbad property owners are unable to determine if
the existing or proposed RPZs impact their properties. Recall the
county is fond of saying that property owners who buy near
airports cannot complain about airport impacts. Complaints are
justified when county prepares drawings, which do not
sufficiently inform the owners of the airport impacts.
0 In the Final PEIR, correct the drawings to (i) add scales, (ii)
superimpose the drawings over actual properties affected, (iii) add a list
of properties affected, and (iv) state whether the RPZs drawn in each of
the four quadrants are based on the FAA Design Requirements for B or C
or D aircraft.
• BRR 51. Figure 4-lb: Specific First Quadrant: West End Runway
Deficiencies [B-11 Enhanced Alternative RPZs.
0 Is the 1st Quadrant RPZ shown a departure RPZ [aircraft taking off only]
or approach RPZ [aircraft arriving and landing]? Why aren't both
shown?
0 Recall that Figure 4-la fto which Figure 4-lb is linkedl shows a West
66
End EMAS. When the West End EMAS is installed, there will be a
buffer area between the EMAS and a relocated runway threshold to deter
approaching aircraft from landing in the EMAS (which is designed for
aircraft taking off only). This new runway threshold will require an
adjusted Approach RPZ. Accordingly the existing and future approach
RPZs will NOT be identical as Figure 4-1 b, First Quadrant, suggests.
o In the Final PEIR, answer the questions above and provide the missing
information with scales to show actual distances and actual Carlsbad
properties affected. Understand that BOS adoption of the PMP places a
cloud over and affects the economic value of properties affected.
Accordingly, county needs to identify the specific properties.
• BRR 52. Figure 4.1 b: Second Quadrant: East End Runway: No Extension
Deficiencies.
o Is the RPZ shown a departure RPZ [ aircraft taking off only] or approach
RPZ [aircraft arriving and landing]? Why aren't both shown? Recall
that Figure 4-la [to which Figure 4-lb is linked] shows an East End
Runway Safety area.
o In the Final PEIR, answer the questions above and provide the missing
information with scales to show actual distances and actual Carlsbad
properties affected? Understand that BOS adoption of the PMP places a
cloud over and affects the economic value of properties affected.
Accordingly, county needs to identify the specific properties so the
extent of (i) county's "constructive taking" of properties and (ii) needed
avigation easements may be determined.
• BRR 53. Figure 4.1 b: Third Quadrant: East End 200-Foot Extension
Deficiencies.
67
0 Is the RPZ shown a departure RPZ [aircraft taking off only] or approach
RPZ [aircraft arriving and landing]? Why aren't both shown?
0 Explain why the future [purple shaded] RPZ is smaller than the existing
RPZ [blue marked area]. Just the opposite should be true as Palomar
transitions to heavier, faster D aircraft that have more potential to create
widely scattered damage on the ground in the event of a crash.
0 In the Final PEIR, answer the questions above and provide the missing
information with scales to show actual distances and actual Carlsbad
properties affected? Understand that BOS adoption of the PMP places a
cloud over and affects the economic value of properties affected.
Accordingly, county needs to identify the specific properties so the
extent of county's (i) "constructive taking" of properties and (ii) needed
avigation easements may be determined.
• BRR 54. Figure 4.1 b: Fourth Quadrant: East End 700-Foot Extension Added
to Prior 200-Foot Extension Deficiencies.
0 Is the RPZ shown a departure RPZ [ aircraft taking off only] or approach
RPZ [aircraft arriving and landing]? Why aren't both shown?
0 Recall that Figure 4-lb [to which Figure 4-la is linked] shows an East
End Runway Safety Area [ red lines] rather than an EMAS. But after a
900-foot east end runway extension [200-foot increment plus 700-foot
increment], there is no room for a 1000-foot RSA which the FAA Design
guidelines require for a runway extension handling C and D aircraft.
Accordingly, county must install an east end EMAS. When the East End
EMAS is installed, there will be a buffer area between the EMAS and a
relocated runway threshold to minimize approaching aircraft from
landing in the EMAS (which is designed for aircraft taking off only).
This new runway threshold will require an adjusted Approach RPZ.
68
0 Moreover, apart from the just-noted issues, county's Figure 4.lb,
Fourth Quadrant, makes no sense. It shows exactly the same RPZ as
Figure 4.1 b, Third Quadrant, which involves only a 200-foot runway
extension. The location of a 5100-foot runway RPZ and a 5800-foot
runway RPZ can not be the same.
0 In the Final PEIR, answer the questions above and provide the missing
information with scales to show actual distances and actual Carlsbad
properties affected? Understand that BOS adoption of the PMP places a
cloud over and affects the economic value of properties affected.
Accordingly, county needs to identify the specific properties. Explain
why county believes a 5100-foot and 5800-foot RPZ can be located
identically.32 Also, explain why a recirculation of the RPZ is not needed
in view of the county's complete failure to provide meaningful RPZ
information. Provide sufficient detail for court review.
39 New County County depiction of • BRR 55. In Table 4-1 entitled "Comparison of Project Alternatives to Project
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements Objectives" of its March 2018 PEIR [ see the reproduced table following Item 42
(con'd) and RPZs (con'd)-below], county lists multiple reasons why the D-IiI Full Compliance Alternative is not
FIGURES 4-2a & 4-possible including financial feasibility. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be
2b re: D-III Full served by extensively pointing out the many defects in Figures 4-2a and 4-2b.
Compliance Nevertheless, we incorporate by reference our questions and comments in BRR 51 to
54 for county response in its Final PEIR since the defects in Figures 4.2a & 4.2 b
mirror the defects in Figure 4.1 b.
40 New County County depiction of • BRR 56. In Figures 4-3a and 4-3b, county refers to its "D-III Modified Standards
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements Alternative" [ which county's March 2018 PEIR Table 4-1 rejects because it fails to
(con'd) and RPZs (con'd)-avoid impacts to airport businesses.] See Table 4-1 evaluation column 5. Accordingly,
FIGURES 4-3a & 4-no useful purpose would be served by extensively pointing out the many defects in
32 It may be that a 5100-foot RPZ and 5800-foot RPZ have the same dimensions but the start and end of the RPZ would differ because aircraft take-off and land
at different runway locations. Moreover, the required east end EMAS further adjusts the RPZ depending on whether an approach or departure RPZ is involved.
69
3b re: D-III Figures 4-3a and 4-36. Nevertheless, we incorporate by reference our questions and
comments in BRR 51 to 54 for county response in its Final PEIR since the defects in
Figures 4.3a & 4.3b mirror the defects in Figurea 4.1 b. Also, in all of the quadrants that
show moving the RPZ into adjacent areas impacting new property owners, identify the
specific property owners impacted by address and location
41 New County County depiction of • BRR 57. In Table 4-1 entitled "Comparison of Project Alternatives to Project
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements and Objectives" of its March 2018 PEIR [see Table 4-1 following Item 42], county lists
(con'd) RPZs (con'd)-multiple reasons why the D-III On-Property Alternative is not possible including
FIGURES 4-4a & 4-6b financial feasibility. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by pointing out
D-III On Property Alt the many defects in Figures 4-4a and 4-46. Nevertheless, we incorporate by reference
our questions and comments in BRR 51 to 54 for county response in its Final PEIR
since the defects in Figures 4.4a & 4.4b mirror the defects in Figures 4.1 b.
42 New County County depiction of • BRR 58. County refers to this alternative as the "C-III Modified Standards
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements and Compliance Alternative" and in Table 4-1 rejects it as unable to meet present
(con'd) RPZs (con'd)-and future demand. Figures 4-5a and 4-5b present interesting issues that county FIGURES 4-Sa & 4-Sb needs to address in its Final PEIR as follows: Alt Re: •
0 As to Figure 4-5a showing county's C-111 Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative, it shows an EMAS at each end but no
dimensions. Prior county figures [4-2a, 4-3a, and 4-4a] referred to 350-
foot EMASs.
• We understand that the current FAA design requirement for a
new runway that (i) handles C and /or D aircraft and (ii)
eliminates the standard 1000-foot Runway Safety area at the end
of the runway is 600-feet. Either county knows this and
intentionally failed to put a dimension on the Figure 4-5a EMAS
or county is uncertain how to proceed.
• IF FAA requirements say county must install a 600-foot EMAS at
both the Palomar west end and east end runway, then county does
70
not have a sufficient area to create even an 800-foot runway
extension.
• Accordingly ALL county RPEIR RPZs are likely incorrect for
two reasons:
• First, a 600-foot EMAS rather than a 350-foot EMAS
alters the actual, physical runway end and hence the
RPZs.
• Second, either a 600-foot or 350-foot EMAS, likely
requires a buffer area between the inner EMAS end and
the designated landing threshold -as indicated by a
displaced threshold.
0 In the Final PEIR, address the issues noted above and:
• Cite the current FAA length requirement for airports building
new runways to handle C and/or D aircraft and the FAA Advisory
Circular or Order or other document imposing the requirement
and the relevant paragraphs.
• State the actual land area available west to east without adding
retaining walls that county has available to construct a new
runway if county moves the runway 75 feet to 110 feet to the
north.
• State the additional land area that county creates by adding its
proposed Palomar west end retaining wall and backfills it with
dirt.
• Provide a revised Figure 4-5a [or add a Figure 4-5aa] showing (i)
the runway length county could achieve if the FAA requires
county to add a 600-foot EMAS at each runway end and (ii) how
the approach and departure RZAs change under this scenario.
71
• BRR 59. Figure 4-Sb First Quadrant. West end runway shifts 123 feet
north, no runway extension. In the Final PEIR, identify the specific property
owners impacted by the shifted RPZ by address and location. Identify how the runway
shift will also alter the SDRAA Airport Land Use Commission restrictions on Carlsbad
property owners in the 5 safety and noise zones impacted by the length, location, and
orientation of a new Palomar runway.
• BRR 60. Figure 4-Sb. Second Quadrant. East End: Runway shifts 123 feet
north; no runway extension.
0 In the Final PEIR, identify the specific property owners impacted by the
shifted RPZ by address and location. Identify how the runway shift will also
alter the SDRAA Airport Land Use Commission restrictions on Carlsbad
property owners in the 5 safety and noise zones impacted by the length,
location, and orientation of a new Palomar runway.
0 In the Final PEIR, explain why the existing and future RPZ are displaced from
the yellow landing threshold.
• BRR 61. Figure 4-Sb. Third Quadrant. East End: 200-foot runway
extension 'with 200-foot shift in Landing Threshold.
0 In the Final PEIR, identify the specific property owners impacted by the
shifted RPZ by address and location. Identify how the runway shift will also
alter the SDRAA Airport Land Use Commission restrictions on Carlsbad
property owners in the 5 safety and noise zones impacted by the length,
location, and orientation of a new Palomar runway.
• BRR 62. Figure 4-Sb. Fourth Quadrant. East End: 600-foot runway
extension [ after initial 200-foot runway extension as indicated by light green
extension in Figure 4-5a] with 370-foot shift in Landing Threshold.
0 In the Final PEIR, identify the specific property owners impacted by the
72
shifted RPZ by address and location. Identify how the runway shift will also
alter the SDRAA Airport Land Use Commission restrictions on Carlsbad
property owners in the 5 safety and noise zones impacted by the length,
location, and orientation of a new Palomar runway.
0 Figure 4-5b shows a 370-foot runway landing threshold shift. Figure 4-5a
(to which 5b relates) shows a Palomar runway east end EMAS but does
not specify whether it is 350 feet, 600 feet, or other dimension. For
reasons above, it appears a 600-foot EMAS is required. Explain in the
Final PEIR (i) the how the size of the 370 foot shifted east end threshold
was determined, (ii) whether the shift is based in part on an EMAS
install, (iii) ifso, the size of the EMAS assumed, and (iv) the actual
length of the Palomar runway available to aircraft landing east to west
after the landing threshold is displaced 370-feet.
0 Explain in the Final PEIR why the future RPZ [purple area] in Figure
4-5b (as well as in some other figures) is not a regular shaped trapezoid.
The two outermost RPZs are "indented." How and why were those
indents determined. The issue is important because as depicted in Figure
4-5b, one or more buildings may be in the RPZ if the indents are
incorrectly calculated.
73
...... ---·· -----··----
Table 4.1. Comparlaon of Project Altematlvn to Project Objective•
PrOjtct~ec:thte (lectlon 1,1)
1) ~ • "the proloood allernQf.lve mU$1 preserve an(Slor
enhance the safety or Airport ur.ors, Airport user, ,1clude
paaoon(JEltS, pilOts, Arport staff. tooonts, and other
operators. Safety crltbt'!il oncompass FAAa11portdos,9n
1tandard&, Slate and local regulations, and ac:counl Jor the
operaUooal luictionat1tv of aircraft and A1rpor1 users.
2)Eman<ial.!JlilllbJJll> The preferred dDvelopmont 111torna1Mt mull ad<tess the ooar and long-term Airport
needs in II manner lhlll 1!1 llMnc.laly achle1111bl&, llnantmly
ro,pon,ible, Md anvil"onmoolaly and op&ralionally
11-uslanable
3) ~ lmpi1CCl5 to AJpgrt BuaonH:, -Avod operah:,nal or physu::al c.hangefi to airport tenants or loosoholds m a dot to
avoid d1Srupt101l!I IO airpOft butmwu,ses
4 J 6b!lb: 11.2 A'-:ii1ll!l!l21».llt 1;~1Ji:l1oa 1.ulU E 1,,11!,m:: Qc:miKld
F oreca!lts of iwiah-on-n,talod demend hav11 been develOpod
for !his Airport Ma11ter Plan Update. Theae lorocm;ts we
ufl&d 11s a QIIUQfl lo dcltHnmo what Alrpor111nprovomont11 w~I
be roqurod lo maintain or mp.nnd fiOMC-tl al the Airport ar-.1 at what poml m ltrne tmprovemenls should be 111pltwnenlod
1 ho preferred altornallve !V'o~ bo llblo lo 11cc0fnmotx1lo
prqecled lcvots ol IIYliJUon demand a!i warrantod,
s, AtallY.Jll.f.it"-lb'.lllllUlXIIDJUltJ..l2.B.mrw.~n1ul ~ .. Oe~lte eJGshng physk;:nl coostminta at the
a1rpor1, I IS destable IO keep all fac•l~y improwments Within the 1.ul!lllnQ airport lenca~ne This minrm.tes projOcl oosl and
lhe potential for env.-orvnent!II and land UH 1111pacts.
6) Etwl!onmcntal Impacts -A gool of recommended
allernah-.es ta lo mlnffl,ze impacts lo tho environmonl Th,s
!ndudu'!i on-Airport and ofr-airp1Xl impact».
McClellan-Palomar Alrpor1 Mar.ter Plan Draft PEIR
Chaphtr 4 Alternallves
11 otfsi& I mP'lcl& lo surrguodlog envrons llWdlOQ. bUSIOISSH and roadwav,-Mapr roc.onstrucllon of eusttng
bi.ninossos, infrastrocture, and lransportallon syslems con
have s1gruficant impocts on an airpor1 and tho sorroundng
ar811. Such projects add cost. impact operal101"11J. capuc1ly.
and can have unmtend&d envuu,montal 11~acts. The
prolerred allernat1vo should m1rwm12e changes lo the
surroundu,g comm1r1ty and mlmstructuro
SJ~~ -Proposed 1mprovomeris shoukt ad-lure lo FAA deslg, cri10r111 and be flnanc.olly reasonable
m order lo be ahgible for FAA grant lunrJng for dnign und construct11;:in
@ -denotes ollwnativo meets objocl111e
)( -donolcm alt&rnaliv(l; dolt!i not moetobject1vo
Propo.,.d o,a Project IMI D-IIFuN ttMUModlh4 p~ Enhanced :Compltanca u-... Standanle c-= Allem-'w · AhMIUw Ahmtdw : MmtltwJ
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 X 0
0 0 0 0 X
0 X )( 0 0
0 0 0 X 0
0 0 0 X 0
Propoa1d o~a Project IMI D-IIFul co-.. --... No Enhal'ICld !Complenc. :.::. c'= P,ojed Allemllllw Abffllllve Allemllh• --1
0 0 0 X 0
0 X 0 0 0
Chapter 4 Aletnati~~
C-111-d o .. 0n Public Ptopony ..... -Comm1nt Compttance Ahmadw, Att.malh,• Altomotlv•
0 0 0
X 0 0
X 0 0
0 X X
0 0 0
0 0 0
Page4-17
January ~018
C-111..;._d D .. Dn Public ""'-11111-: Comffllnl
:M1mtdw Compllanct -ANemathre Afttmdve
0 0 0
0
ljQW· iu &1tplainod m Ch1tplor 4 of th111 P[IR, !IJufl"l(t of the prO)&d 0J1111nativos would achill!lew ddfor&nl awporl daufcaloo1 (l.e, B-11. C-111. D-111). A1. such, th!11 table analyz!tl
whethtw lha PfO!ed ob)oclwt!s would be me1 fo, ucil all&rnahw"!. respecl111e atrpo,1 class1fica11on
74
43 New County County depiction of • County's Table 4-1 in its March PEIR (see reproduction above) concedes that
RPZ Figures PMP Improvements and the "Public Alternative" meets all 8 of the county evaluation criteria except
(con'd) RPZs (con'd)-county says it won't accommodate existing and future aircraft. FIGURES 4-6a & 4-6b
Alt Re: The Public Alternative simply shifts the existing runway and taxiway 0
north 123 feet and east 300 feet. This alternative:
• (i) allows county to install a west end EMAS without
constructing a massive $13.7 million retaining wall;
• (ii) allows county to preserve an east end standard 1000-foot
Runway Safety Area, thereby avoiding the cost of a $12 million
east end EMAS;
• (iii) allows county to continue to handle all the C and D aircraft
county has handled for the last twenty years ( about 12% of
Palomar annual operations);
• (iv) allows Palomar operations to grow substantially since
Palomar in the 1990s handled about 286,000 annual operations
and now operates at 30% under capacity handling only about
155,000 operations annually;
• (v) reduces the county's cost from $110 million to less than $50
million·33
' • (v) reduces the county CEQA biological impacts [fewer species
and less species habitat disturbed and navigation light relocation
minimized]; air quality impacts [fewer pollutant and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions resulting from no need to place hundreds of
pilings through the landfill]; water quality impacts [avoids
hundreds of holes migrating 30 years oflandfill contaminated
33 Cost savings include: (i) no runway west end $13.7 million retaining wall, (ii) no runway east end $12 million EMAS, and (iii) no
expense of driving several hundred pilings 20 to 50 feet through trash to create ,grade beams supporting a runway extension.
75
garbage juice to clean soils and ground waters under the landfill];
and traffic impacts [by emphasizing the airport general aviation
uses that county promised in Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit
172];
• (vi) improves Palomar Airport safety for FAA-rated C and D
aircraft by installing a runway west end EMAS and assuring a
standard east end 1000-foot standard FAA Runway Safety Area
0 County claims in Table 4-1 that a relocated runway will not meet future
Palomar needs. But county's documents forecast only 208,000 annual
future operations within 20 years, far less than the 286,000 previously
handled.
0 County also claims that one tenant who flys to China, making only about
500 annual flights per years [less than ½ of 1 percent of Palomar
operations], would have to continue to refuel at Lindbergh if the Palomar
runway is not extended. That is true. But it is also true that extending
the runway to even 5800 feet would not allow China flights without
refueling do go Gulfstream range limits and fuel safety limits.
• Given all the advantages above, county needs to assure that its Public Comment
RPZ figures are understandable and accurate. They are not for the below
reasons:
0 The Figure 4-6a diagram Legend does not fully explain Palomar changes.
For instance, the Legend refers to "Removed Pavement" in a light solid
yellow color. Yet there is no corresponding solid light yellow color in the
drawing. There are substantial cross-hatched yellow areas that might be
pavement removal but no corresponding item in the Legend.
0 Also, Figure 4-6a refers to a 400-foot centerline separation between the
runway and taxiway. Such a 400-foot separation is an FAA D-III
76
requirement, not an FAA B-II requirement and should be deleted from
the figure.
o The Figure 4.6a Legend confusingly refers to the "existing RPZ" in blue
and to the purple relocated as RPZ as "area of runway protection zone."
In contrast, earlier drawings refer to purple areas as 'areas of future
runway protection zones."
• As in other RPZ drawings, county in Figure 4.6b shows smaller RP Zs (purple)
than the existing RPZs (blue) and fails to distinguish between approach RPZs
and departure RPZs.
• In the Final PEIR, address the above issues and recirculate understandable
approach and departure drawings so the businesses immediately adjacent to the
airport can know which businesses are being restricted.
Table End But See Attachments A [Transcript of Hom December 16, 2016 comments] & B [New FAA Reauthorization Act
Requirements for FAA and Airport Sponsors l
Attachment A to Bender August 6, 2018 Comments on County June 2018 Recirculation of
Parts of its Palomar Airport Master Plan Programmatic EIR
Transcript of Supervisor Hom December 16, 2015 Board of Supervisor Meeting Statement
Indicating
• His Prejudgment of the Palomar Master Plan Project Alternatives Before Any Environmental Analysis;
• His Desire to Build a 900-Foot, Not the Consultant Recommended 800-Foot Runway Extension;
• His Desire to Substitute Larger, Faster FAA-Rated C & D Aircraft for FAA-Rated A & B Aircraft to Displace the Palomar
130,000 [out of 155,000] Annual General Aviation Recreational Flyers
77
Board of Supervisors Meeting Dec 16, 2015, 9am
Agenda item #3 • Options for New Master Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport
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 SO 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 urn, 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 t~e 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
78
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 neKt 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."
79
Attachment B to Bender August 6, 2018 Comments on County's Recirculated PEIR Sections:
2018 Proposed FAA Reauthorization Act to Replace The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 expiring September 30,
2018
80
DRAFT
6/25/18
!Add to S.14051
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section 141191
(I) The Amendment. This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY [2021].
(2) £1il:ww:. This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
communities surrounding commercial airports resulting from Next Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGen'") concentrated and low-altitude flight paths and
airspace redesign.
(3) Background. Using NextGen satellite Performance Based Navigation technology, the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system.
This includes its Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNAV) utilizing global positioning system (OPS) technology, including Required
Navigational Performance guidance. Dates of implementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNAV-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following NextGen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 2011 and thereafter.
(4) The Problem. NextGen's employment of satellite-based technology comprising. Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Draft (6/25/18) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed
New Section 14119]
81
DRAFT
6/25/18
[Add to S.1405[
(I)
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section [4119[
The Amendment. This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY [202 I].
(2) fw:ww:. This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
communities surrow1ding commercial airports resulting from Next Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGen") concentrated and low-altitude flight paths and
airspace redesign.
(3) Background. Using NextGen satellite Performance Based Navigation technology. the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system.
This includes its Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNA V) utilizing global positioning system (GPS) technology, including Required
Navigational Performance guidance. Dates of implementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNA V-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following NextGen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 2011 and thereafter.
( 4) The Problem. NextGen's employment of satellite-based technology comprising Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNA V) Global
Draft (6/25/18) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed
New Section [ 4 I 19]
82
I Add to S.1405(
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section (41191
DRAFf
6/25/18
( I) The Amendment. This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY [2021].
(2) ~. This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
communities surrounding commercial airports resulting from Next Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGen") concentrated and low-altitude flight paths and
airspace redesign.
(3) Background. Using NextGen satellite Perfonnance Based Navigation technology, the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system.
This includes its Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNAV) utilizing global positioning system (GPS) technology, including Required
Navigational Performance guidance. Dates ofimplementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNAV-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following NextGen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 20 I I and thereafter.
(4) The Problem. NextGen's employment of satellite-based technology comprising Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNA V) Global
Draft (6/25/18) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed
New Section [4119]
83
DRAFT
6/25/18
[Add to S.1405[
(I)
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section (4119(
The Amendment. This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY (2021].
(2) ~-This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
communities surrounding c01mnercial airports resulting from Next Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGen") concentrated and low-altitude flight paths and
(3)
airspace redesign.
Background. Using NextGen satellite Performance Based Navigation technology, the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system.
This includes its Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNAV) utilizing global positioning system (OPS) technology, including Required
Navigational Performance guidance. Dates of implementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNA V-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following NextGen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 2011 and thereafter.
(4) The Problem. NextGen's employment of satellite-based technology comprising Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNA V) Global
Draft (6/25/18) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of20l8 Proposed
New Section (4119]
85
DRAFT
6/25/18
!Add to S.14051
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section 141191
(I) The Amendment. This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY [2021]
(2) ~-This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
(3)
(4)
communities surrounding commercial airports resulting from Next Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGcn") concentrated and lm\·-altitude flight paths and
airspace redesign.
Background. Using NextGen satellite Perfonnance Based Navigation technology. the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system
This includes its \Vide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNA VJ utilizing global positioning system (GPS) technology. including Required
Navigational Performance guidance. Dates of implementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNAV-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following NextGen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 2011 and thereafter.
The Problem. Ne:xtGen's employment of satellite-basl!d technology comprising Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNA V) Global
Draft (6/25118) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed
New Section [ 41 I 9]
86
DRAFT
6/25/18
!Add to S.14051
(!)
Amendment to Federal Administration
Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed New Section 141191
The Amendment-This draft amendment adds a new Section to Title IV of the proposed
FAA Reauthorization Act of2018. ("FRA"). The FRA would extend FAA budgetary
authorization through FY [2021 ].
(2) ~. This amendment addresses overflight noise and pollution impacts on
(3)
(4)
communities surrounding commercial airports resulting from Ncx1 Generation Air
Transportation System ("NextGen .. ) concentrated and low-altitude flight paths and
airspace redesign.
Background. Using NextGen satellite Performance Based Navigation technology. the
FAA has implemented at commercial airports its modernized aircraft guidance system.
This includes its Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabling area navigation
(RNA\/) utilizing global positioning system (GPS) technology, including Required
Navigational Perfonnance guidance. Dates of implementation ofNextGen WAAS-
RNAV-GPS technology vary by airport and runway following Nex1Gen rollout in 2007
with significant implementation in 2011 and thereafter
The Problem. NextGen's employment ofsatel\1te-bascd tcclrnology comp, ising Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS) enabled Area Navigation (RNA V) Global
Draft (6/25/18) Amendment to Federal Administration Reauthorization Act of2018 Proposed
New Section [ 41 I 9]
88
City Comment Letter on
Recirculated Portions of the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master
Plan Draft Program EIR
July 31, 2018
Sarah M. Rockwell
McClellan-Palomar
AIRPORT
MAS T ER P l A N
..........
Ill
2
Recirculated Portions
−Biological Resources
−Greenhouse Gas Emissions
−Energy Use and Consumption
−Figures Associated with Runway
Protection Zones
3
Additional Comment on GHG
Section
−In the City’s comment letter on the DEIR,
we raised questions about the
environmental effects of drilling hundreds
of holes into the existing landfill to install
piles for the runway extension. The GHG
analysis does not appear to include any
potential methane emissions associated
with this work. Please add this analysis.
4
Additional Comment on RPZ Figures
−The RPZ maps are very different from the
maps in the original Draft PEIR. Please
explain why the maps have changed.
Also, it appears that the RPZs are
shrinking in the new maps. Please
explain if this is indeed the case, and if so,
why.