HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-11; City Council; ; Discussion of the County of San Diego's McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Consideration of a City Council Position on the San Diego County Board of SuperviDiscussion
On February 20, 2018, the City Council received a video presentation from the County of San
Diego regarding its proposed master plan update for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, including a
discussion of several potential design alternatives for the future classification of McClellan-
Palomar Airport, and the accompanying draft environmental impact report. On that date, the
City Council also received a presentation from the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell regarding
the City of Carlsbad's authority related to the County's proposed master plan.
The February 20, 2018, staff report with exhibits, correspondence received and presentation
slides is a 317-page file available for reference at:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?Blob1D=36666.
The county's one-hour presentation video can be viewed under Item 3 at:
http://carlsbadca.swagit.com/play/ 02202018-1848.
On Oct. 10, 2018, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors took the following actions related
to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update:
• Certified the plan's final environmental document
• Adopted findings for mitigation of significant environmental impacts
• Adopted a statement of location and custodian of record
• Adopted a decision and explanation regarding recirculation of the draft environmental
document
• Adopted a program for mitigation monitoring and reporting
• Approved the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
• Selected the D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative, allowing a runway
extension up to 800 feet
The Board of Supervisors also directed county staff to return with an ordinance amending the
appointment process for members of the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC) to allow
the Carlsbad City Council to submit a recommended appointee for consideration by the District
5 Supervisor. County Ordinance No. 10589 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January
9, 2019, and the first city-nominated PAAC member, Winthrop Cramer, was appointed by the
Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2019.
The Board further directed County staff to work with the City of Carlsbad to strengthen the
airport's Voluntary Noise Abatement Program and to actively monitor complaints and enforce
noise violations.
The October 10, 2018, County Board Letter (Exhibit 1) and Minute Order No. 1 (Exhibit 2) are
attached for reference. The Board Letter includes a detailed discussion of airport changes and
options associated with the D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative and the B-11
Enhanced Alternative; the two alternatives selected by county staff as the most viable for the
future of Palomar Airport.
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 2 of 21
In addition, the October 10, 2018, Board Letter with attachments can be found at:
https://bosagenda.sdcounty.ca.gov/agendadocs/materials.jsp. The October 2018 McClellan-
Palomar Airport Master Plan Update is a 668-page document available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/Mast
er-Plan-Update/Master Plan Update.pdf.
Fiscal Analysis
This item has no fiscal impact.
Next Steps
None.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Engaging in a discussion, rescinding a prior action, and considering taking a position on an
action taken by another public agency does not qualify as a "project" under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. October 10, 2018, County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Board Letter regarding
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (without attachments)
2. October 10, 2018, County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Minute Order No. 1 regarding
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 3 of 21
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
LAND USE AGENDA ITEM
DATE: October 10, 2018
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT
Exhibit 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
GREGCOX
First District
DIANNE JACOB
Second District
KRISTIN GASP AR
Third District
RON ROBERTS
Fourth District
BILL HORN
Fifth District
01
MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE (DISTRICT: 5)
OVERVIEW
McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar Airport) is owned and operated by the County of San Diego
and located in the City of Carlsbad. The airport provides general aviation, corporate and
commercial services; serves as a gateway to resorts, tourist attractions; and is utilized by local
businesses and residents. Based on an economic vitality study prepared for the Palomar Airport,
activities related to the airport generate millions of dollars of income and revenue for the
surrounding local communities, including Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside, and Encinitas.
Across the nation, airport master plans provide a framework to guide future airport development
over a 20-year period. Palomar Airport has had two previous master plans. The most recent one,
completed in 1997, has reached the end of its 20-year planning period. On December 16, 2015
(3), the Board of Supervisors (Board) directed Department of Public Works (DPW) staff to proceed
with a Master Plan Update and to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
Staff collaborated with stakeholders including aviation business owners, pilots, and individuals
from the surrounding community to get community input for the proposed Master Plan Update.
DPW has prepared a proposed Master Plan Update for Palomar Airport with the goal of developing
a framework to ensure existing and future aviation demand continue to be accommodated in a safe
and cost-effective manner. Existing facilities, forecasts of future airplane operations, aviation
demand, and alternatives for future facility development were all considered during the update
process.
This is a request for the Board to adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update.
Through the development of the proposed Master Plan Update, a staff recommendation and several
options were developed and are included for the Board's consideration. This is also a request to
certify the associated Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
RECOMMENDATION (S)
CIDEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1. Certify that the Final PEIR, SCH No. 2016021105, has been completed in compliance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board of
Legistar vl.O 1
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 4 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
Supervisors, that the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the information
contained therein, and that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis
of the Board of Supervisors. (Attachment B)
2. Adopt the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant
to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Attachment C)
3. Adopt the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record. (Attachment E)
4. Adopt the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of the draft PEIR. (Attachment
F)
5. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with
Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Attachment G)
6. Approve the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H)
7. Provide direction on the classification of the Palomar Airport final Master Plan Update
alternative and associated options by selecting one of the following alternatives and any
available options:
7a.1 D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative, with a runway extension of
3 70 feet; or,
Option #7a.2: Allows a runway extension up to 800 feet
Or
7b.l B-11 Enhanced Alternative, with no runway extension; or
Option #7b.2: With a runway extension up to 200 feet; and/or
Option #7b.3: With a runway extension up to 900 feet; and/or
Option #7b.4: Directs staff to return to the Board for further consideration of the
D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with these recommendations. There will be no change in net
General Fund cost and no additional staff years.
The proposed actions will not commit the County of San Diego (County) to construct any facilities
or improvements and will not financially obligate the County. The Department of Public Works
will return to the Board of Supervisors (Board) at a later date for approval to advertise and award
construction contracts as projects are fully designed, and for any necessary appropriations as
funding becomes available for implementing the Board's selected Master Plan alternative. It is
expected the projects will be completed in phases over the 20-year planning period covered by the
Master Plan Update, and staff will seek annual authorization to apply for federal, including Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), and state grants in future years.
Legistar vl.O 2
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 5 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT
Approval of the proposed Master Plan Update would plan for future investment in Palomar Airport
allowing the County of San Diego to continue to provide aviation services to businesses and
communities in north county. The proposed Master Plan Update, if approved, will make safety
and operational efficiency improvements at Palomar Airport which will play a role in
accommodating current and forecast of aviation activities at the airport. Jobs created by airports
attract highly skilled trades and professional service employees. The Economic Vitality Analysis
Study, prepared for the Palomar Airport, forecasts that by 2030, PalomarAirport will support over
4,600 jobs in the area, with an estimated $155.2M in personal income, $33.4M in state and local
tax revenue, and $560.8M in business revenues.
ADVISORY BOARD STATEMENT
On September 20, 2018, the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee recommend by a vote of 5
Ayes, 1 Noes, with 2 absent and 1 vacancy, to support the Staffs recommendation to the Board to
approve the Master Plan Update, with a B-II Enhanced Alternative including Options 1, 2, and 3
which allows a runway extension of up to 900-feet over the existing inactive landfill and directs
staff to return to the Board in the future for further consideration of the D-III Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative if a viable solution can be found to alleviate land use concerns from the
D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative's Runway Protection Zones.
BACKGROUND
The McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar Airport) is owned and operated by the County of San
Diego (County) and located in the City of Carlsbad. The airport is a gateway to and from San
Diego's north county providing facilities and services for general, corporate, and commercial
aviation uses. The County opened Palomar Airport in 1959 after the airport was relocated from
Del Mar due to the construction of Interstate 5. At the time the airport's location was selected, the
surrounding area was mainly used for agricultural purposes. The City of Carlsbad established a
Growth Management Plan in 1986 to proactively manage growth, which changed the land uses
around the airport to include commercial and industrial uses. Since that time, development has
encircled the airport.
Airport Master Plan
Across the nation, airport master plans provide a framework to guide future airport development
to enhance safety and operational efficiency over a 20-year planning period. The most recent
Master Plan was approved by the Board on September 16, 1997 (15). On September 28, 2011 (3),
at the request of aviation businesses, and with support of mayors and some council members in
the north county cities of Carlsbad, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista, the Board
directed Department of Public Works (DPW) staff to conduct a feasibility study to determine if
there were potential improvements, including extension of the runway, that could make the
existing Palomar Airport safer and more efficient. On September 25, 2013 (2) the Board received
the completed feasibility study for potential runway improvements.
The proposed Master Plan Update was started in early 2014 and included options and alternatives
from the feasibility study. On December 16, 2015 (3), the Board directed staff to proceed with the
proposed Master Plan Update and to prepare a PEIR. Existing facilities, forecasts of future
operations, aviation demand, and alternatives for future facility development were all considered
Legistar vl.O 3
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 6 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
during the master plan update process. During the planning process, costs and alternatives were
developed and environmental impacts were analyzed based on aviation forecasts .
Stakeholder Outreach
The County's stakeholder outreach for the proposed Master Plan Update began in 2014.
Stakeholders included aviation business owners, pilots, and members of the public from the
surrounding communities. There was a dedicated website for the proposed Master Plan Update
and PEIR and an email distribution list. County stakeholder outreach during the release of the
PEIR and draft Master Plan Update included public workshops in north county, an open house at
the airport terminal, stakeholder meetings and several meetings with the City of Carlsbad staff and
the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee. Stakeholder input was considered in the proposed
Master Plan Update and PEIR. The major concerns raised included:
Noise -The proposed Master Plan Update recognizes that noise is an ongoing concern for
communities around the airport. The PEIR noise analysis indicates that noise levels have
decreased around Palomar Airport over the past 20 years and are not expected to reach previous
noise levels over the 20-year planning period in the proposed Master Plan Update. The airport
is surrounded by commercial and industrial use properties and there are no residential areas
within the FAA-designated noise-impact area. However, staff recognize that noise is a concern
of stakeholders; To address community concerns, Palomar Airport has an Airport Noise
Officer who helps implement a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP) to coordinate
with, and educate pilots on quiet hours, minimum altitudes, and flight routes to try to avoid
residential areas. Based on stakeholder input, staff have increased outreach to other airports in .
the region to educate pilots coming to Palomar Airport about the VNAP, increased the amount
of information available to pilots and businesses on the airport, and have improved VNAP
signs on the airport to make them easier to see and understand. In addition to two existing
noise monitoring microphones on the south and east sides of the airport, one microphone is
being installed to the north and one to the west of the airport to monitor noise.
City of Carlsbad's Conditional Use Permit (CUP)-172 and vote of the people -In August
of 1980, the Carlsbad City Council adopted an ordinance in their Municipal Code that would
require a city-wide vote of the people if the City Council was required to take a legislative
action to authorize the expansion of Palomar Airport. The County subsequently entered into
CUP-172 with the City of Carlsbad in September 1980 to allow flexibility in airport
development if the structures and uses on the airport were aviation-related. Commenters on the
Master Plan Update PEIR asserted that a vote of residents of the City of Carlsbad is required
pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.53.015. For the Master Plan Update, there is no
expansion of the airport because there are no zone changes, general plan amendments or other
legislative action needed by the City of Carlsbad and all improvements are proposed on
existing County-owned airport property.
Inactive Landfill -The Palomar Airport is constructed over portions of an inactive landfill,
and stakeholders commented that runway extensions constructed over landfill areas could
damage the methane collection system and impact the environment. Prior to construction of
any improvements on the landfill, the methane collection system will be re-designed to
Legistar vl.O 4
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 7 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
accommodate the improvements. Construction plans for the improvements will be reviewed
and approved by regulatory agencies to ensure public health and safety.
Traffic -Several commenters were concerned about future vehicle traffic since the current
morning and peak-hour traffic conditions on roads in the communities near the airport were
already busy. The County coordinated with the City of Carlsbad to obtain data regarding their
nearby future land development projects. Vehicle traffic on all area roads were evaluated in a
comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis that was completed and published as part of the Draft
PEIR. The PEIR found no direct traffic impacts to roadways would occur.
Aviation Forecasts
Aviation forecasts examine the level of demand expected to occur at the Palomar Airport over the
20-year planning period and are used to guide design and layout options in the Master Plan Update
and to determine the environmental impacts in the Final PEIR. The forecast includes the number
of commercial passengers, the number of takeoffs and landings, and anticipated aircraft sizes.
The proposed Master Plan Update contains a baseline forecast based on airport activity from 2016
that was prepared using Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines. However, the 2016
usage reflects very limited commercial service for a single year that is not reflective of historical
trends because commercial service had been continually operating from 1990 to 2016. Therefore,
two additional planning level scenarios were developed that considered commercial service will
resume at the airport and will expand over the 20-year planning period with additional flight
destinations. Use of the planning level scenarios received concurrence of the FAA and reflect
potential growth related to the return of commercial airline service at Palomar Airport.
Scenario 1 is based on the number of passengers that the current airport terminal could handle.
This scenario fully utilizes the existing airport terminal capacity. Scenario 2 reflects the number
of passengers predicted to use Palomar Airport in the Regional Aviation Strategic Plan (RASP)
prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments in 2011 as a contingency to address San
Diego's regional airport needs. To support the larger number of passengers, Scenario 2 would
require some modifications to existing airport terminal facilities, such as two additional passenger
gates, larger restrooms and more area for Transportation Security Administration screening. Both
scenarios forecast that there will be more commercial passengers using the airport than the
historical peak during 1999-2000. Even with increased numbers of commercial passengers, the
number of takeoffs and landings are forecasted to be 30% less than the historical peak:
Departing Commercial Takeoffs and
Forecast Passengers Landings
Baseline 171 192,860
Scenario 1 -Utilize Existing Terminal 305,000 195,000
Scenario 2 -SANDAG Projected Use 575,000 208,000
1999/2000 -Historical Peak 78,000 292,000
Legistar vl.O 5
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 8 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
Airport Classifications
The FAA classifies airports based on the characteristics of the airplanes that will use the airport.
The size and type of the airplanes using an airport is considered in the design of the airport.
Airplanes are given an alpha designation (A, B, C, D, and E) based on an airplane's approach
speed and a numeric code (I, II, III, IV, V and VI), which is based on an airplane's wingspan and
tail height. An airplane with a C or D alpha designation would land at a faster speed than an
. airplane with a B designation, and an airplane with a III numeric code would have a wider
wingspan than airplanes with a I or II designation. Palomar airport is used by B-II mid-sized
business jets and larger C-:-III and D-III corporate business jets and C-II commercial passenger jets.
While airplanes larger than B-II operate at Palomar Airport, the FAA requires operational
restrictions on some commercial planes to ensure that larger airplanes are not on the runway and
taxiway at the same time.
On December 16, 2015 (3), the Board directed staff to proceed with the proposed Master Plan
Update focusing on a modified C/D-III classification, as the preferred alternative, and to prepare
a PEIR. FAA airport design guidance recommends the proposed Master Plan Update include
improvements to support larger D-III airplanes because there are more than 500 annual takeoffs
and landings of airplanes larger than D-III at Palomar Airport. During coordination with the FAA
it was determined that combining the CID classifications was not acceptable to the FAA; therefore,
only the D-III alternative is being presented for the Board's consideration.
The County can elect to keep Palomar Airport at a B-II classification because the FAA recognizes
there can be unique situations that affect an airport's classification. While Palomar Airport is
currently classified by the FAA as a B-II airport, Palomar Airport's runway is ,150 feet wide which
is the same width as FAA's design standard for D-III runways. The wider runway at Palomar
Airport is an important existing enhanced feature above a regular B-II airport standard that allows
aircraft faster and larger than B-II airplanes to safely use Palomar airport. These larger and faster
airplanes are already safely using the airport and can continue to safely use the airport in the future.
Main Design Features for Consideration
The Master Plan Update considers four mam airport design features to make additional
enhancements to an already safe facility:
1) Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS): Construction of EMAS provides an
additional safety feature to assist with stopping airplanes in an emergency. An EMAS is a
bed of engineered material built at the end of a runway. The materials are high-energy
absorbing materials that will crush under the weight of an airplane. EMAS enhances safety
by working like a runaway truck ramp to slow and safely stop an airplane absorbing its
forward energy should it overrun the runway.
2) Runway Extension: The existing runway length of 4,897 feet does not provide some
airplane operators the same benefits they would have with a longer runway. Additional
runway length is needed by some airplanes to takeoff fully-fueled and loaded to allow them
to fly farther. In addition, a runway extension would reduce airplane noise for communities
west of the Palomar Airport because it would allow most airplanes to increase flight
Legistar vl.O 6
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 9 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
elevation sooner. By increasing elevation sooner, tan airplane would be quieter to people
on the ground because the airplane would be higher in the air. Any runway extension that
requires construction over areas of inactive landfill may not be fully eligible for the FAA' s
usual 90% grant share since FAA has indicated they may be reluctant to fund projects that
result from the County's placement of the landfills
3) Runway and Taxiway Shift: Shifting the runway to the north to increase the distance
between the runway and the taxiway would meet FAA design standards and enhance safety
for larger airplanes and increase safety margins. The additional space between the runway
and taxiway provides more room for larger and faster airplanes to safely come to a stop if
they run off the side of the runway.
4) Runway Protection Zones (RPZ): RPZs are areas that extend off the end of the runway
and serve to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The size of
RP Zs are def med by FAA design standards based on the size of aircraft. Compatible uses
within the RPZs are generally restricted to land uses such as agriculture, golf courses, and
similar uses that do not attract concentrations of people. Building sizes or other
improvements that may be obstructions can also be restricted. Incompatible land uses
within an RPZ include residences and places of public assembly such as churches, schools,
hospitals, cinemas, shopping centers, and other uses with similar concentrations of people.
Specific diagrams for the RPZs can be found in the proposed Master Plan Update
(Attachment H).
Master Plan Update Alternatives
An important goal of the proposed Master Plan Update was to keep all projects on the airport's
existing property. The proposed Master Plan Update includes six alternatives for the future
classification of Palomar Airport. Four of the alternatives did not meet the objectives of the
proposed Master Plan because the improvements were not within the existing airport boundary or
would have adversely impacted existing airport businesses. The following two alternatives were
selected as the most viable for the future of Palomar Airport and are being presented for Board
consideration. Both alternatives can accommodate the aviation forecasts in the proposed Master
Plan Update.
D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative and Options (Recommendation #7a.1)
The D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative (D-'-Ill Alternative) was developed to meet
FAA design standards, with some modifications, while enhancing safety for existing and future
operations of larger D-III airplanes. The current estimated construction cost for the D-III
Alternative is approximately $108.5 million; of which approximately $88.2 million could be
funded by FAA and the remaining $20.3 million could be funded by the County. The D-III projects
would be phased over several years and are anticipated to be completed within 13 to 20 years,
dependent on available funding. The airport changes and options include:
1) EMAS: The D-III Alternative includes the construction of an EMAS at the west end of
the runway. This EMAS enhances airport safety by providing a means to quickly stop an
airplane that may overrun the end of the runway. This is an advantage on the west end due
Legistar vl.O 7
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 10 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
to a slope at the end of the runway. Additionally, EMAS allows for FAA D-III design
standards to be met for runway safety area.
EMAS is also planned to be added to the existing B-II runway as an interim safety
improvement. When the runway is relocated to the north under the D-III Alternative, the
EMAS for the B-II runway can be relocated and expanded to meet D-III standards and
align with the new shifted runway. The first phase of installing the interim condition
EMAS for the existing B-II runway is anticipated to be completed in the next Oto 7 years,
and the next phase includes the relocated and larger D-III EMAS that is anticipated to be
completed within 13 to 20 years, dependent on available funding.
2) Runway Extension: The D-III Alternative includes an extension of the runway by 3 70
feet that would allow airplanes to takeoff with more fuel which would enable farther flights
without having to stop to refuel. For example, with the 370-foot runway extension, a D-
UI-sized airplane could reach the United Kingdom without refueling.
An interim runway extension of200 feet on the existing B-II runway is planned to provide
additional runway length for takeoff. With this interim extension, a B-II-sized airplane
could expand its range and reach most of the east coast except for the northeastern area of
the United States. When the runway is relocated to the north under the D-III Alternative,
the interim condition 200-foot runway extension on the B-II runway will be removed along
with the remaining portions of the existing B-II runway. The first phase to construct an
interim 200-foot runway extension for the existing B-II runway is anticipated to be
completed in the next 0 to 7 years, and the next phase includes an extension of the runway
by 370 feet to align with the new shifted runway and is anticipated to be completed within
13 to 20 years, dependent on available funding.
Option 1 (Recommendation #7a.2): Extend Runway up to 800 Feet -Option 1 would
add up to 430 feet of runway extension to the 370 feet extension. An 800-foot extension
would allow the B-II-sized airplane to reach any destination on the east coast and allow a
D-III-sized airplane to travel into the middle of Europe and to parts of China without
refueling. This option would require the construction of an additional EMAS on the eastern
end of the runway, bridging the inactive landfill, and construction of a retaining wall at the
south side along Palomar Airport Road. The extension would likely be done in phases and
current estimated construction cost for the D-III Alternative with Option 1 (additional
$23.7 million) is a total of $132.2 million. Approximately $89.5 million could be funded
by the FAA and the remaining $42.7 million could be funded by the County. The project
would be phased over several years and is anticipated to be completed within 13 to 20
years, dependent on available funding.
3) Runway and Taxiway Shift: The D-III Alternative includes a shift of the runway to the
north by 123 feet and a shift north of the taxiway by 19 feet. The shift north increases the
distance between the runway and the taxiway to meet design standards for a D-III airplane
by providing more clearance between airplane when they are operating on the runway and
the taxiway at the same time and FAA operational safety restrictions could be lifted.
Legistar vl.O 8
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 11 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRJCT: 5)
4) RPZ: A 370-foot extension is necessary as part of this alternative to minimize the effects
of new RPZs on private properties at the east end of the airport. One office building would
be affected with the 370-foot runway extension. Any runway extension less than 370 feet
would place a second office building into the RPZ.
D-111 Alternative Constraints
There are several constraints associated with the shifting of the runway and taxiway north:
• . The shift north would result in the relocation of over 30 small general aviation airplanes to
the south side of the airport and would eliminate the self-service fuel facility on the north
ramp. These smaller airplanes could be accommodated on the south side of the airport and
the relocation would be phased as space became available.
• To accommodate the D-111 improvements, four Modifications of Standards will need to be
presented to the FAA for approval.
• The D-III Alternative would affect an existing office building on the north side of the
airport. The existing building is not currently located in the RPZ at the east end of the
airport but would be brought into the east end RPZ if the runway was shifted north. Any
effects to the property could be addressed by working with the property owner and the
FAA before making the decision to pursue the D-III Alternative.
B-11 Enhanced Alternative and Options (Recommendation #7b.J)
The B-11 Enhanced Alternative (B-11 Alternative) was developed to meet FAA design standards
while enhancing safety for existing and future airplane operations from larger and faster C-111 and
D-111 airplanes. Remaining at a B-11 classification is less costly compared to the D-III Alternative
and the current estimated construction cost for the B-11 Alternative, without any runway extension,
is $26.8 million; of which approximately $24.2 miHion could be funded by FAA and the remaining
$2.6 million could be funded by the County. The project would be phased in over several years
and is anticipated to be completed within seven years, dependent on available funding. The airport
changes and options include:
1) EMAS: The B-11 Alternative includes the construction of an EMAS at the west end of the
runway. This EMAS enhances airport safety by providing a means to quickly stop an
airplane that may overrun the end of the runway. This is an advantage on the west end due
to a slope at the end of the runway.
2) Runway Extension: The B-11 Alternative includes two options for runway extension:
Option 1 (Recommendation #7b.2): Extend Runway by 200 Feet-Option 1 would add
up to 200 feet of runway extension. Extension of the runway by 200 feet would provide
additional runway length for takeoff and landing. For example, a B-11-sized airplane could
expand its range and reach most of the east coast except for the northeastern area of the
United States and would allow a D-111-sized airplane to travel about 300 miles farther to
Legistar vl.O 9
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 12 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
reach Japan without refueling. The current estimated construction cost for the B-II
Alternative with Option 1 (additional $14.9 million) is a total of $41.7 million.
Approximately $3 7.5 million could be funded by FAA and the remaining $4.2 million
could be funded by the County. The project would be phased in over several years and is
anticipated to be completed within seven years, dependent on available funding.
Option 2 (Recommendation #7b.3): Extend Runway up to 900 Feet -Option 2 would
add up to 700 feet of runway extension to the 200 feet extension in Option #7b. l. Extension
of the runway up to 900 feet would allow a B-II-sized airplane to reach any destination on
the east coast of the United States; the current runway is not long enough to allow the B-II
_ airplanes to reach the east coast The extension would allow a D-III-sized airplane to
extend its range to most of the countries in Europe and to parts of China without refueling.
The runway extension would require bridging the inactive landfill and construction of a
retaining wall at the south side of the airport along Palomar Airport Road. The extension
would likely be done in phases, and the current estimated construction cost for the B-II
Alternative with Options 1 and 2 (additional $69.3 million) is a total of $96.1 million.
Approximately $37.6 million could be funded by FAA and the remaining $58.5 million
could be funded by the County. The project would be phased in over several years and is
anticipated to be completed within 20 years, dependent on available funding.
3) Runway and Taxiway Shift: Shifting the runway would not be necessary for the B-II
Alternative.
4) RPZ: There are no new constraints to properties located in the RPZs for any of the options
presented in the B-II Enhanced Alternative. For the B-II Alternative, the RPZs at each end
of the runway are currently larger than the FAA requires for a B-II category airport. If the
B-II Alternative is selected, then the size of the existing RP Zs will be reduced to match the
FAA design standards.
Option 3 (Recommendation #7b.4): Explore Solutions Runway Protection Zone
Constraints for a Future D-111 Design Designation -The Board can direct staff to work
with the property owners in the future to determine if a viable solution can be found. Staff
would return to the Board to provide information on the options for the Board's
consideration. Option 3 allows for initial improvements, such as EMAS, to be pursued
while the County determines if any viable solution can be found to alleviate new land use
concerns from the RPZs needed for the D-III Alternative. If a solution can be found for
the land use concerns, staff would return to the Board at a future date to provide information
on the solution and to allow consideration for a D-III design designation.
B-11 Alternative Constraints
There are a few constraints associated with the B-II Alternative that should be considered:
• Currently, when commercial airplanes larger than B-II are on the runway or taxiway, no
other airplane larger than B-II can be on either the runway or taxiway. The FAA has
Legistar vl.O 10
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 13 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
indicated that if the B-II alternative is chosen, an operational restriction may be extended
to all airplanes larger than B-II. The restriction could mean time delays for larger airplanes.
• At the east end of the runway, one office building and a portion of a storage facility would
be removed from the RPZ. At the west end of the runway two existing parcels would be
removed from the RPZ and existing land use restrictions may be removed; one parcel is a
vehicle parking lot and the other is an industrial building. If the County later decides to
pursue the D-III Alternative, the two west-end parcels would again be placed within the
RPZ. Placing the two parcels back into the RPZ in the future within the larger RPZ required
for the D-III Alternative could create renewed use restrictions on these parcels.
Summary of Airport Alternatives and Staff Recommendation
Staff developed a reco_mmendation and several options for the Board to consider that meet the
aviation forecast and will enhance safety at Palomar Airport:
Alternative and Recommendation Options
D-111 Alternative
Recommendation #7a.1
• Shift Runway & Taxiway North
• Extend Runway 370 Feet
B-11 Alternative
Recommendation #7b.l
Option 1: Extend Runway up to 800 Feet with East
EMAS
Option 1: Extend Runway up to 200 Feet
Option 2: Extend Runway up to 900 Feet
Option 3: Review D-III Land Use Solutions and
Return to the Board
Staff recommendation is for Palomar Airport to remain a B-II classification and include Options
1, 2 and 3 which would extend the runway up to 900 feet and to determine if a viable solution can
be found to alleviate new land use concerns in RP Zs posed by the D-III Alternative. If a solution
can be found to alleviate the land use concerns with the D-III Alternative, staff would return to the
Board for further direction. The B-II Alternative safely accommodates larger aircraft, like D-III
airplanes; has a lower estimated construction cost; does not impact the northern airplane parking
area; and enhances safety through the construction of EMAS. The staff recommendation and all
options are feasible alternatives for the proposed Master Plan Update and future development of
the Palomar Airport. With a B-II Alternative, the airport is safe today and will be safe in the future,
while allowing flexibility in the future should the opportunity arise to pursue the D-III Alternative.
Environmental Review Process
The County prepared a Final PEIR for the proposed Master Plan Update in accordance with
Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The PEIR
analyzed the environmental impacts from all improvements anticipated in the Master Plan Update.
The PEIR proposes all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to below a level
of significance, and describes the project objectives, environmental setting, and project
alternatives. Environmental analysis of the D-III Alternative in the PEIR allows for a full review
Legistar vl.O 11
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 14 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
of the feasible alternatives discussed in the PEIR and provides CEQA analysis for alternatives with
less environmental impacts including the Staff Recommended B-II Enhanced Alternative.
A Notice of Preparation for the PEIR was circulated for public review from February 29, 2016 to
March 29, 2016. The County circulated the DraftPEIR and the Draft Master Plan Update for a 61-
day public comment period from January 19, 2018 to March 19, 2018. Based on the comments
received during the initial public review period, the County elected to revise and recirculate the
Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Use and Consumption portions of
the PEIR to clarify and strengthen the analysis. Updated RPZ exhibits from the Master Plan
Update were included with the PEIR recirculation to provide the public the opportunity to review.
Public comments were received on the recirculated portions of the PEIR from June 21, 2018 to
August 6, 2018.
Since the PEIR analysis was conducted at a programmatic level, subsequent project-level CEQA
review will be needed once a project in the Master Plan Update moves forward for design and
construction. A summary of the impacts analysis in the PEIR, including portions of the PEIR that
were recirculated, is set forth below.
Significant Impacts and Mitigation
The following impacts were found to be significant and mitigable as described in the PEIR:
Traffic -The traffic analysis utilized the City of Carlsbad methodology and shows that over
time, Palomar Airport vehicle traffic may have a cumulative impact at two intersections along
Palomar Airport Road at Camino Vida Roble and El Camino Real. Like other development
projects in the City of Carlsbad with cumulative impacts, traffic mitigation will be in the form
of a fair-share payment to the City prior to the impacts occurring. The City collects these
payments and uses them to address traffic congestion within their network.
Biology -The Master Plan Update proposes elements that require earthwork which will
include removal of sensitive vegetation and habitat for sensitive bird species. Biological
Resources was one of the Draft PEIR sections that was recirculated to include review of
potential impacts associated with the relocation of existing FAA navigational lighting on a
parcel owned by the County east of El Camino Real if the runway shifts to the north. Impacts
to these biological resources will be mitigated through preservation, creation, and/or
restoration of in-kind sensitive habitat and species-based mitigation as overseen by the state
and federal resource agencies.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources -The Master Plan Update anticipates the installation of a
retaining wall that would be visible to motorists as they pass by the airport along Palomar
Airport Road. Design of the wall will incorporate colors, textures, and landscape, where
feasible, as discussed in the City of Carlsbad's design guidelines to minimize the visual change
along the corridor.
Hazardous Materials -Palomar Airport is underlain by three cells of an inactive landfill that
closed in 1975. The County continues to maintain the inactive landfill to ensure the site is
environmentally safe, including monitoring and maintaining landfill gas systems, maintaining
Legistar vl.O 12
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 15 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
stormwater Best Management Practices, maintaining soil cover, and monitoring groundwater
quality and surface water. The inactive landfill continues to be monitored by the County's
Department of Environmental Health Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, .and the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District. Impacts to the inactive landfill will be incorporated into the design of future runway
extensions and will be addressed through the implementation of a Soil Management Plan,
which will designate standard practices for construction and project-specific protocol to
address materials as they are encountered during construction activities.
Construction Noise -An analysis was conducted for construction activities and airplane
noise. Airplane noise was determined not to be a significant impact based on FAA guidance
for evaluating aviation noise. However, construction could result in elevated noise levels
during certain activities. Therefore, for future airport projects that will generate construction
noise, a demolition and construction management plan will be prepared for each individual
project to identify specific measures to help ensure surrounding industrial and public properties
are not affected by the project's construction noise.
Less than Significant Impacts
The PEIR evaluated other environmental resources including Air Quality, Energy Use and
Consumption, Land Use and Planning, Operational Noise, Public Services, and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, and the analysis concluded the Master Plan Update did not exceed thresholds of
significance and would not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA. In response
to public comments on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use and Consumption sections,
further analysis was conducted and incorporated in the PEIR to include more specific modeling
data and an updated review of the regulatory framework.
Public Comments Received
The County received 138 comment letters from agencies, organizations and individuals regarding
the Draft PEIR and Master Plan Update documents during the initial and recirculation public
review periods. The letters included comments on existing airport operations and noise; biological
resources; climate change; hazardous materials; and traffic. The letters and responses to comments
are included in the Final PEIR as Attachment D.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental Impact
Report (PEIR) include impacts to aesthetics and visual resources; biological resources; hazards
and hazardous materials; construction noise; and traffic. Findings supported by substantial
evidence have been made for each significant effect (Attachment C). Strategies to minimize and
mitigate these potential impacts have been incorporated into the proposed program. The
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (Attachment G), provides a mechanism for
compliance with the mitigation measures. The PEIR concluded that these impacts can be mitigated
to a less than significant level.
Legistar vl.O 13
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 16 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
The PEIR discusses potential significant effects ofbuildout of the Proposed Master Plan Update's
16 anticipated improvements (including all the Airfield alternatives described in the Master Plan,
such as the B-11 Enhanced Alternative and the D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative)
as a first-tier programmatic environmental review. When an individual Master Plan Update project
is proposed, it will be ·examined using the PEIR to determine whether an additional environmental
document must be prepared pursuant to CEQA Section 15168( c ).
LINKAGE TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STRATEGIC PLAN
Today's proposed action supports the Operational Excellence and Sustainable
Environments/Thriving Strategic Initiatives in the County of San Diego's 2018-2023 Strategic
Plan. Airports provide infrastructure and facilities that serve the aviation community and the
general public and play an important role in the local economy. Approval of the Palomar Airport
Proposed Master Plan Update would enhance the County's ongoing efforts to provide modern
infrastructure, innovative technology and appropriate resources to ensure that the County provides
superior service delivery to customers. Carefully studying and analyzing proposed projects to
ensure all impacts to environmental resources are mitigated contributes to a region that is healthy
safe and thriving.
Respectfully submitted,
C) ().
c_ )rti~~.k J\ °t'< ''-·
SARAH E. AGHASSI
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT(S)
A. Vicinity Map
B. Final Program Environmental Impact Report
C. Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects
D. List of Commenters, Letters of Comment, and Response to Comments on the Program
Environmental Impact Report
E. Statement of Location and Custodian of Record
F. Decision and Explanation Regarding Recirculation of the Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report
, G. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
H. McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
Legistar vl.O 14
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 17 of 21
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET
REQlJIRES FOUR VOTES: □ Yes 181 No
WRITTEN DISCLOSURE PER COUNTY CHARTER SECTION 1000.1 REQUIRED
D Yes 181 No
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS:
December 16, 2015 (3), directed staff to proceed with the McClellan Palomar Airport Master
·Plan focusing on the modified CID-III classification, subject to the preparation of a Program-
Level Environmental Impact Report;; September 25, 2013 (2), received Feasibility Study for
Potential Improvements to Palomar Airport Runway; September 28, 2011 (3), directed staff to
conduct Feasibility Study for Potential Improvements to Palomar Airport Runway; June 14,
2011 (10), directed staff to return with scope, cost and timeline for feasibility study for
improvements to Palomar Airport; September 16, 1997 (15), approved the 1997 McClellan-
Palomar Airport Master Plan; and March 19, 1979 (66), directed staff to proceed with
implementation of the 1975 Master Plan and established the Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee.
BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE:
Board Policy F-44
BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS:
NIA
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE:
NIA
ORACLE AW ARD NUMBER(S) AND CONTRACT AND/OR REQUISITION
NUMBER(S):
N IA
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Works
OTHER CONCURRENCE(S): NIA
CONTACT PERSON(S):
Richard E. Crompton ·
Name
858-694-2233
Phone
Richard. Crompton@sdcounty.ca.gov
E-mail
Legistar vl.O
Derek R. Gade
Name
858-694-3897
Phone
Derek.Gade@sdcounty.ca.gov
E-mail
15
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 18 of 21
Exhibit 2
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2018
MINUTE ORDER NO. 1
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE (DISTRICT: 5)
OVERVIEW
McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar Airport) is owned and operated by the County of San Diego and
located in the City of Carlsbad. The airport provides general aviation, corporate and commercial
services; serves as a gateway to resorts, tourist attractions; and is utilized by local businesses and
residents. Based on an economic vitality study prepared for the Palomar Airport, activities related to the
airport generate millions of dollars of income and revenue for the surrounding local communities,
including Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside, and Encinitas. Across the nation, airport master
plans provide a framework to guide future airport development over a 20-year period. Palomar Airport
has had two previous master plans. The most recent one, completed in 1997, has reached the end of its
20-year planning period. On December 16, 2015 (3), the Board of Supervisors (Board) directed
Department of Public Works (DPW) staff to proceed with a Master Plan Update and to prepare a
Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
Staff collaborated with stakeholders including aviation business owners, pilots, and individuals from the
surrounding community to get community input for the proposed Master Plan Update. DPW has
prepared a proposed Master Plan Update for Palomar Airport with the goal of developing a framework
to ensure existing and future aviation demand continue to be accommodated in a safe and cost-effective
manner. Existing facilities, forecasts of future airplane operations, aviation demand, and alternatives for
future facility development were all considered during the update process.
This is a request for the Board to adopt the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update. Through
the development of the proposed Master Plan Update, a staff recommendation and several options were
developed and are included for the Board's consideration. This is also a request to certify the associated
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
RECOMMENDATION(S) .
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1. Certify that the Final PEIR, SCH No. 2016021105, has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board of Supervisors, that
the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the information contained therein, and that the
Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors. (Attachment·
B)
2. Adopt the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant to Section
15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Attachment C)
3. Adopt the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record. (Attachment E)
4. Adopt the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of the draft PEIR. (Attachment F)
5. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section 15097
of the State CEQA Guidelines. (Attachment G)
OCTOBER 10, 2018 1
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 19 of 21
6. Approve the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (Attachment H)
7. Provide direction on the classification of the Palomar Airport final Master Plan Update alternative
and associated options by selecting one of the following alternatives and any available options:
7a.1 D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative, with a runway extension of 370 feet; or,
Option #7a.2: Allows a runway extension up to 800 feet
Or
7b.l B-II Enhanced Alternative, with no runway extension; or
Option #7b.2: With a runway extension up to 200 feet; and/or
Option #7b.3: With a runway extension up to 900 feet; and/or
Option #7b.4: Directs staff to return to the Board for further consideration of the
D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with these recommendations. There will be no change in net
General Fund cost and no additional staff years.
The proposed actions will not commit the County of San Diego (County) to construct any facilities or
improvements and will not financially obligate the County. The Department of Public Works will
return to the Board of Supervisors (Board) at a later date for approval to advertise and award
construction contracts as projects are fully designed, and for any necessary appropriations as funding
becomes available for implementing the Board's selected Master Plan alternative. It is expected the
projects will be completed in phases over the 20-year planning period covered by the Master Plan
Update, and staff will seek annual authorization to apply for federal, including Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and state grants in future years.
BUSINESS IMP ACT STATEMENT
Approval of the proposed Master Plan Update would plan for future investment in Palomar Airport
allowing the County of San Diego to continue to provide aviation services to businesses and
communities in north county. The proposed Master Plan Update, if approved, will make safety and
operational efficiency improvements at Palomar Airport which will play a role in accommodating
current and forecast of aviation activities at the airport. Jobs created by airports attract highly skilled
trades and professional service employees. The Economic Vitality Analysis Study, prepared for the
Palomar Airport, forecasts that by 2030, Palomar Airport will support over 4,600 jobs in the area, with
an estimated $155.2M in personal income, $33.4M in state and local tax revenue, and $560.8M in
business revenues.
ACTION:
Noting for the record that an Errata sheet was submitted; ON MOTION of Supervisor Hom, seconded
by Supervisor Cox, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following:
1. Certified that the Final PEIR, SCH No. 2016021105, has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines, that the Final PEIR was presented to the Board of Supervisors, that
the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the information contained therein, and that the
Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board of Supervisors.
2. Adopted the Findings Concerning Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects pursuant to
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
OCTOBER 10, 2018 2
June 11, 2019 Item #18 Page 20 of 21
To: Carlsbad City Council Members & City Attorney
Via: Carlsbad City Clerk [REQUEST Immediate Distribution]
From: Ray & Ellen Bender [2019 RB Comments CCCjune 11 Agenda 18 Dill Airport final]
Council Tuesday June 11, 2019 Meeting Agenda Item 18 Re:
18. DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO'S MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON THE
SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PREFERRED D-111 MODIFIED STANDARDS
COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE FUTURE AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION, ALLOWING A RUNWAY
EXTENSION UP TO 800 FEET
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 19, 2018, we sent the county and Carlsbad detailed reasons why McClellan-
Palomar Airport (Palomar) should remain an FAA-rated B-11 airport. In essence, the
reasons Palomar should remain a B-11 airport are:
• County Staff Recommendation: County staff in its August/September 2018
recommendation letter to the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (P AAC)
recommended the B-11 Alternative.
• PAAC Decision: In August/September 2018, the PAAC rejected the D-III
Alternative by vote and selected instead the B-11 Alternative.
• Environmental: As county itself concedes, the D-ill alternative is more
environmentally harmful.
• Financial: As county concedes, county anticipates handling 30% fewer
operations than it handled 20 years ago and county's only and admitted
justification for D-ill is to allow less than one half of one percent of aircraft
using Palomar to fly further by using a longer runway.
• Financial: As county concedes the estimated construction D-ill cost is more
than $70 million because -without FAA permission -county created 31 acres
of landfills (a non aeronautical use violating FAA Grant Assurances)-thereby
creating unstable soils and the need to drive hundreds of pilings deep through a
contaminated landfill.
• Safety: County made no effort to show that attracting larger, faster, more fuel-
laden aircraft over the Palomar east end methane-emitting landfill is safer than
confining smaller, slower, less fuel-laden aircraft to the existing runway. In ·
fact, county stated in its EIR responses that it was not required to discuss safety
concerns.
• Compliance with Carlsbad and County General Plan Policies. As set forth
beginning with p. 14 below, county's D-ill Alternative does not comply with
California, county, or Carlsbad planning law.
1
Accordingly, the Carlsbad Council May 7, 2019 action opposing the county's selection of
the Palomar D-111 Alternative is well supported.
For the details supporting the above conclusions, see the materials at pp. 2 to 35 below.
Unfortunately, the Carlsbad staff report for the June 11, 2019 meeting presented its
recommendation with absolutely no discussion of the pros and cons of the D-111
alternative.
JUNE 6, 2019 REPRODUCTION OF BENDER MARCH 19, 2019 LETTER
COMMENTS ON COUNTY 2018 PMP AND PEIR
March 19, 2018
[White Binder with Bender Comments on County of San Diego 2018 -2038 McClellan-Palomar Airport [CRQ]
Master Plan (PMP) and PMP Programmatic ElR Personally Delivered to County Environmental Planning Division at
5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123 on Monday March 19, 2018]
Ray and Ellen Bender
1015 Camino del Arroyo Dr.
San Marcos, CA 92078
Phone: 760 752-1716
Email: benderbocan@aol.com
This cover letter ends with a list of: The Key Reasons County's 2018-2038 PMP and PEIR Do
Not Support its Recommendation to Convert McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport From an
FAA-Rated B-11 Airport to a Modified D-111 Airport.
Behind this cover letter, we provide are PMP and PEIR comment Parts A, B, and C.
Part A explains why the county PMP does not comply with Carlsbad General Plan policies,
county General Plan policies, or applicable law.
Part B explains why county's PMP and PEIR do not support a county request for Palomar
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. In its PMP and PEIR, county expressly says it will
evaluate PMP alternatives by 8 criteria. One of these criteria is the county's eligibility for FAA
grants.
Part C lists detailed PMP and PEIR defects. The defects are so substantial that county has an
obligation to recirculate a new draft PEIR.
We provide our comments to Carlsbad because McClellan-Palomar Airport sits within the city
of Carlsbad. Also, in our Part A, we adopt various comments Carlsbad has made on the county
PMP and PEIR.
The Key Reasons County's 2018-2038 PMP and PEIR
Do Not Support it~ Recommendation to
Convert McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport
2
From an FAA-Rated B-11 Airport to a Modified D-111 Airport
A; Money: The Numbers Don't Add Up1
• The new PMP forecasts a 30% Reduction in Palomar flights from the prior high.
• Only 10,000 passenger flights are needed to handle 500,000 more passengers out of a
total of 208,000 flights.
• County forecasts¼ of 1 % D-III flights by 2038 (500 out of 208,000).
• County admits few past flights are needed to refuel after leaving Palomar.
• County wants to spend $40 million to add 800 runway feet when Palomar replaced the
entire 4900 runway feet for $8.6 million plus in 2009 [$50,000 v. $1,750 per linear
foot].
• The total project cost is $97,000,000 to $110,000,000 (in 2016 dollars).
• Palomar has either lost money or made little in each of the last 4 years.
• Even the FAA forecasts Palomar flight levels far less than county.
Conclusion: Palomar already has major excess capacity. Any Board of Supervisor member
approval of this project should lead to a grand jury investigation of BOS expenditures and
political contributions ..
B. Neither FAA Safety Policies Nor its Grant Policies Support the County Converting
Palomar from a B-11 Airport.
• Safety: According to a 2011 Eighty-Page FAA Report Prepared for Santa Monica
Airport, which like Palomar also has 300-Foot Runway Safety Area, Palomar Does not
need a $25 Million EMAS Safety System.
• Safety: According to the county's own October 15, 2013 SCS Engineers Report,
Attracting Larger, Faster, More Fuel Laden Aircraft to a Methane-Emitting Closed
Landfill Crash Site at the End of the East Palomar Runway Creates Significant Safety
and Environmental Risks.
• Safety: Planned Obsolescence. County wants a "Modified D-III" airport. "Modified"
means building a runway/taxiway separation of 367 feet instead of the FAA-required
400 feet. As a result, concurrent operation of the taxiway and runway would be barred
to avoid aircraft on each touching wingtips. Who spends $100 million for an airport
obsolete on the day it is built? Especially when an operating restriction limits capacity?
• County Palomar FAA Grant Violations -County for 14 years dumped more than 1
million cubic yards of trash in more than 30 acres of Palomar Airport canyons in
violation of FAA Grant conditions drastically driving up Palomar development costs.
County fails to explain why other grant applicants applying for more meritorious ·
projects could lose requested funds because Palomar needs extraordinary funding levels
due to county's misconduct.
1 For costs, see the county PMP, page ES-1 i.
3
• County FAA Handbook Justification Failure. Why would the FAA fund a Palomar
200-foot runway extension when (i) Palomar operates at very substantial under capacity
on a runway rebuilt with FAA funds 9 years ago and (ii) county wants to tear up that
runway and more than $30 million of runway additions (the $25 million west end EMAS
and $5 million plus runway extension) within 15 years to build a new runway?
• County FAA Handbook Intergovernmental Cooperation Failure .. Why would the
FAA fund Palomar improvements when: (i) County over a 20-year period failed to meet
RWQCB Palomar landfill water quality objectives, (ii) County created three large
Palomar landfills hostile to aircraft operations without seeking written FAA approval ·
contrary to FAA grant conditions; (iii) County agreed to operate the airport in
compliance with Carlsbad planning and zoning law including CUP 172 but says in its
PMP that it claims immunity from such restrictions; (iv) Government Code § 65402 and
49 USC§ 47106 independently require county to consult with the Carlsbad Council to
resolve airport expansion concerns noted above but county does not in good faith; and
(v) County has a history of failing to cooperate with Carlsbad as shown by county in
1997 asking for a Carlsbad Council hearing for its expiring PMP but later withdrawing
the application? ·
• County FAA Handbook EIR Failure. As to extending the Palomar runway, the county
EIR fails to answer: (i) where is the exact Palomar Unit 3 landfill border? (ii) How
much of a runway extension can be built on stable soil and how much on pilings augured
through the landfill? (iii) How much of Palomar's existing methane collection system
will be replaced and what air quality impacts result? (4) Where does the PMP EIR
discus the issues raised by the county consultant SCS Engineers October 2013 report
outlining safety and environmental impacts of an aircraft crashing into the landfill? and
(5) What problems will auguring hundreds oflong piles through the Unit 3 liner less
landfill cause to water quality?
• County FAA Handbook Project Allowability Failure. For county to show the 2017-
2037 PMP projects are "allowable," the Handbook requires county to show the projects
are necessary and reasonable in cost. What PMP evidence exists to show runway
extensions and relocations are needed when Palomar (1) is underutilized today and flight
forecasts fall 30% over the next 20 years and (2) county presented no credible evidence
of a need to encourage international flights from Palomar? How can FAA consider the
county's projected cost reasonable when the costs are extraordinary as a result of county
placing 1 million cubic yards of decaying, methane-emitting trash, which results in the ·
need for deep pile supported runway extensions?
• County FAA Handbook Improvement Amortization Failure. County's proposal to
extend the runway in the short term and relocate the entire runway within 20 years
violates the FAA 20-year rule, which requires the proposed short term newly
constructed EMAS and runway extension to be amortized over 20 years.
4
• County BCA Manual Revenue Calculation Failure #1: County miscalculates its
projected increased revenues from extending the runway by ignoring the fact that
alleged new Palomar revenues will simply be transferred from San Diego International
Airport 30 miles to the south ..
• County BCA Manual Revenue Calculation Failure #2: County miscalculates its
revenues by ignoring revenue offsets caused by the three Palomar landfill revenue losses
resulting from reducing rent for landfill-impacted tenants.
• County BCA Manual Calculation Failure #3: County improperly excluded EMAS
costs from its runway extension costs. Due to Palomar land footprint limits, Palomar
cannot satisfy FAA Airport RSA 1000-foot length requirements if county extends its
runway unless county adds 2 EMAS systems. In other words, installing the EMAS is
not truly a safety measure but rather a way of increasing the runway length and Palomar
capacity.
• County BCA Manual Failure #4. County's PMP underestimates PMP project costs.
County fails to fully explain its runway extension piling requirement costs including the
. present costs of removing landfill-contaminated soil when hundreds of deep drilling
holes are made. County has also likely failed to design the piling-supported runway
extension to remediate liquefaction that occur at the landfill in an earthquake.
• County BCA Manual Failure 5: County's PMP and BCA estimates do not disclose
how annual landfill maintenance costs will be handled over the 20-year project life.
Once county (i) uses the landfill to support its runway extension and (ii) increases future
environmental risks and clean up resulting from oper~tions, County Airports and not
County Landfill Management should bear the cost of annual landfill monitoring
requirements. Taxpayers should not be bearing the landfill monitoring costs for land
used to benefit the airport. These costs are substantial.
• BCA Manual Failure 6: County's 2011 Runway Feasibility Study and 2018 PMP Fail
to Provide a Meaningful "Sensitivity" Analysis to Support the Project Revenu~s and
Costs it Forecasts and the Accuracy of the Resulting BCA Ratio Calculated-as the
FAA BCA Manual requires.
Conclusion: County defined the 8 criteria by which its PMP project alternatives were to be
judged. The criteria do not carry equal weight for a simple reason. There is no way the Board
of Supervisors could support even one a quarter of the forecasted project costs since Palomar
has been losing money for several years. · Historically, county has asked for the FAA to fund
.90% of airport improvement costs. The FAA usually does for qualifying projects. The facts
above make clear that the FAA will have substantial difficulty awarding county much money.
Hence, the county staff recommendation to install a Modified D-111 runway or even a C runway
fails.
C. The County Programmatic EIR Doesn't Satisfy CEQA.
5
• Credibility. A standard California jury· instruction states in part:
"[I]f you decide that a witness did not tell the truth about something important, you may
choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the
witness did not tell the truth about some things but told the truth about others, you may
accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest. 2
That is also the standard a court would apply if the county EIR were challenged. The
county put its credibility in issue when its Program EIR claimed that there were no
significant water quality issues raised by its PMP project. As detailed in our PMP PEIR
comments, county has failed to meet the Palomar landfill water quality objectives set
forth in Regional Water Quality Control Board Order 96-13 for 21 years despite
receiving requests from the RWQCB in 2016 and 2017 to provide a plan to meet the
objectives. In short, how much of the PEIR can a reader believe? Worse, the county
PMP proposes drilling hundreds of very deep holes through the already "water quality
non-compliant" Palomar Unit 3 19 acre landfill, which will drain contaminants into the
soil and ground waters.
• County's PEIR Fails to Satisfy Programmatic Requirements. California encourages
program EIRs. The concept is simple. Project sponsors usually cannot predict what
projects will be undertaken in the next 20 years. Nor do.they necessarily know specific
project impacts. But courts have said project sponsors must still provide enough info to
determine how long-term projects will impact the environment. County's main project
is an 800-foot $40 million runway extension over a methane-emitting landfill, which
requires placing hundreds of deep pilings through the landfill. County staff asks the
Board of Supervisors to approve this project even though county has not conducted
sufficient soil borings in the location of the interim and final runway extensions to
determine (i) how accurate the pile placement estimates are and (ii) how much
hazardous material will be brought up by its augurs, which drastically affects th~ cost of
removing this material off site.
• County's Project Description Improperly Claim that the Conversion of Palomar
from a B-11 Airport to a "Modified D-111" Airport Keeps All New Airport Related
Facilities Within the Existing Borders on the Northwest Corner of El Camino Areal .
and Palomar Airport Road. We understand that (i) county's proposed retaining walls
may require acquisition of some property and/or (ii) extending and moving the runway
on the northwest comer of ECR and PAR will require placement of navigational aids on
the northeast comer of ECR and PAR. If county disagrees, expressly warrant in the
PEIR that neither of these statements is correct and provide tb,e names and info for the
FAA and county staff that can confirm county's position.
• County's PEIR Fails to Provide Enforceable, Meaningful Mitigation Measures for
Significant Impacts Identified. Recall the credibility comment above. County in
1996 promised another state agency, the RWQCB, that county would use its best efforts
2 See Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions, Instruction 107, LexisNexis
Matthew Bender Official Publisher.
6
to meet the water quality contaminant objectives set forth in the RWQCB order. Yet in
21 years, county reports every year in its monitoring reports that the contaminant levels
exceed the objectives by anywhere from 200% to 1400%. RWQCB has imposed no
penalty on county even though county has yet to present the written plan that RWQCB
requested in both 2016 and 2017. The county 2018 -2038 PMP Executive Summary, as
related to mitigation for PMP biological impacts and traffic impacts, makes vague,
unenforceable, contingent mitigation promises. How well does that work?
• County's PEIR Makes An Inadequate Effort to Identify Cumulative Project
Impacts. Carlsbad has commented that county did not in the PEIR even reference the .
ongoing and planned Carlsbad projects including two hotels.
• For 40 years County has Engaged in a Consistent Pattern of Airport Expansion
Without an EIR or Significant Environmental Analysis Indicating that Its CEQA
"Compliance" is a Sham. EIRs list possible project alternatives and their
environmental impacts. In theory, county picks the best project considering
environmental impacts. County is not supposed to pick a desired project and then
simply write an EIR to justify it. The county Palomar history shows an unbridled pre-
commitment to expanding Palomar Airport for the following reasons:
o In 1980 county promised Carlsbad it would operate a "general aviation basic
transport avenue," which generally serve private owners, corporate jets, and .
aircraft usedin an emergency.3
3 See Carlsbad CUP 172, Condition 11. "Basic transport" airports are airports that serve local needs, not regional
needs. The FAA 2012017 -2022 Natonal Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS) defines the terms "regional,"
"local," and "basic" as follows:
7
Regional
Local
Basic
o County asked the FAA for a B-II airport classification, which county says it has
maintained until 2018. The FAA airport design manual says that B-II runways
have runway widths of 75 feet.4 Instead county built a runway 150 feet wide.5
But county did not install the 1000-foot RS As that FAA-rated C and D airports
have.
o Some C and D aircraft began using Palomar because the extra runway width that
county created allowed Palomar to accommodate the extra wingspan of C and D
aircraft.
o When questioned about C and D aircraft use, county replied that it could not
control the aircraft that chose to use Palomar, omitting to mention that Palomar
attracted such aircraft mainly because county had doubled the Palomar runway
width.
Supports regional economies by connecting
communities to regional and national ma:rkets.
Generally. located in metropolitan areas and serve
relatively large populations. Regional airports have
high levels of activity with some jets and multierigine
propeller aircraft. The metropolitan areasJn which
regional airports are.located can be mefropolitan.
statistii::al areas with ari urban core population of at
least 50,000 or mitropolitari statistical areas with a
core urban population between 10:CiCi0'and 50,000.
Supplements local communities by providing access
to markets within a State or immediate region. Local
airports are mosi often located riear larger population
centers, but riot necessarily in metropblitari or
micropolitan areas. Most of the flying at local airports.
is by piston aircraft in support of business and
personai needs. These airports typically
accommodate flight training; emergency services,
and charter passenger service.
Provides a means for general aviation flying and link
the community to the natiorial airport system. These
airports support general aviation activities, such as
emergency response, air ambulance service, flight
training, and personal flying. Most of the flying at
basic airports is self-piloted for business and personal
reasons using propeller-driven aircraft. They often
fulfill their role with a single runway or helipad and
minimal infrastructure. · .
• · In a metropolitan statistical area, 10 or
more domestic flights over 500 miles,
1,000 or more instrument operations,
and 1 or more based jet or 100 or more
based aircraft.
• Reliever with 90 or-more based aircraft
• Nonprimary commercial service airport
(requiring si::heduled service) within a
metropolitan statistical area.
• Public. owned and 1 0 or more .
instrument operations arid 15 or more
base.d aircraft.
• Public owned and 2,500 or more annual
enplanements.
• Public owned with 10 or more based
aircraft or 4 or mote based helicopters if
a heliport.
• Public owned located 30 or more miles
from the nearest. NPIAS airport.
• Owned or serving a Native American
community.
• Identified and used by the U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Marshals Service,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(designated, international or landing
rights), US. Postal Service (air stops),
or has Essential Air Service.
• A new or replacement (public owned)
airport that has opened within the last
10 years.
• Unique circumslances related to special
aeronautical use. . .
4 See FAA Design Manual AC 150/5300-BA, .Table A 7-3 entitled Runway design standards matrix, AIB Small
Aircraft. If aircraft land at airports with visibility minimums lower than ¾ mile, the manual calls for a runway
width of 100 feet.
5 County 1 hour presentation at February 20, 2018 Carlsbad City Council meeting receiving information about
county ~018-2038 Palomar Master Plan.
8
o In the 1990s, county requested that the FAA certify Palomar as a Part 150 airport
to handle regularly scheduled commercial service. County did not ask Carlsbad
to remove the CUP 172 Condition 11 limiting Palomar to providing "general
aviation basic transport" services.
o In 2009, county obtained FAA funding to dig up and rehabilitate the Palomar
4900-foot runway. After the rehabilitation contract award, it appears that county
by change order asked the contractor to pour concrete with higher load ratings,
presumably to accommodate heavier aircraft in the future. 6
o In December 2015, when the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Palomar
Runway Feasibility report (the basis for the 2018 PMP and prepared by the same
consultant as the PMP), Supervisor Hom stated on the record that he favored a
900-foot runway extension even though the consultant at the meeting stated that
only a maximum of 800 was possible. Mr. Hom also stated on the record (i) he
favored extending the runway over the adjacent El Camino Real to the opposite
side of the road and (ii) displacing the general aviation parking on the north
terminal side.
o In December 2016 -long before the BOS summer 2017 consideration of the
PMP projects -the airport requested a several· hundred thousand dollar FAA
grant to study installation of a Palomar EMAS system.
o In 2017 -to justify re-initiation of air carrier service at Palomar after a 9 to 18
month gap in service -county relied on a 20 year old document and a CEQA
categorical exemption, which did not in any event evaluate the level of air carrier
service that the new air carrier was projecting.
Conclusion: · History shows that county has engaged in a long course of conduct of (i) not only
failing to satisfy state and FAA intergovernmental cooperation requirements but deliberately
frustrating agreements .already made with Carlsbad and (ii) proceeds with Palomar expansion
even before considering environmental documents in good faith.
D. County Has Not Satisfied the Carlsbad, State, and Federal Laws Related to its
PMP.
• Non-Compliance with Carlsbad Law. In 1977, county asked Carlsbad to annex the
Palomar Airport into Carlsbad so Palomar could receive city services. In 1980, county
asked Carlsbad to issue Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 defining the improvements
that county could make to Palomar Airport without further Carlsbad approvals. CUP
172 Table 1 lists future improvements. County initially prepared the table and
expressly included runway extensions. Carlsbad deleted this category when adopting a
revised CUP 172 Table 1. County accepted the revised CUP 172.
6 By our comments, we request county to provide the original 2009 contractor runway pavement requirements, the
adjusted requirements, and how the change impacted the Palomar runway to handle aircraft placing higher loads on
the runway.
9
County now says in its 2018 PMP that it need not abide by CUP 172 because county
need not comply with any Carlsbad zoning or planning requirement. County
voluntarily submitted itself to Carlsbad requirements. County may well have the right
to withdraw that consent. But to do so, county must comply with California law. The
California Government Code requires county to adopt a General Plan covering county
facilities. County operates 8 airports within the county. Its General Plan-which
contains many important policies applicable to airports -expressly applies only to the 6
airports in unincorporated areas. In other words, county wants to operate Palomar
without applying either Carlsbad's or its own General plan policies.
Moreover, when accepting CUP 172, county agreed to CUP 172 condition 11, which
states that county would operate Palomar as a "General Aviation Basic Transport"
airport. 7 Without asking for Car!sbad CUP 172 amendment, County in the 1990s asked
the FAA to certify Palomar as an airport to provide regularly scheduled commercial
service. By its 2018 PMP, county seeks to convert Palomar from an FAA-rated B-II
airport to a "Modified D-III" airport to serve even larger and faster regularly scheduled
commercial aircraft and to provide regional commercial service. Such service does not
comply with the CUP 172 "general aviation basic transport" requirement. 8
• Non-Compliance with State Law Directing Carlsbad Review of PMP. In processing
its PMP and PEIR, county has failed to comply with California Government Code §
65402(b), PUC§ 21661.6 and PUC 21676, which collectively require county to provide
its PMP to the Carlsbad city council for a determination that its PMP projects are
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan.
• Non-Compliance with Showing PMP Consistent with SDRAA ALUC McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Plan. In processing its PMP and PEIR, county has failed
to show that it has or will timely present the Palomar Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
associated with it PMP to the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Dse
Commission (ALUC) for a determination as to whether the proposed 2018-2038 PMP
Projects Require the ALUC to Update the McClellan-Palomar Land Use Compatibility
Plan.
• Non-Compliance with Obtaining an Updated State Division of Aeronautics
Updated Operating Permit. In processing its PMP and PEIR, county has failed to
show that it has or will timely comply with the above.requirements so that county may
obtain an updated Certificate to operate from the California Division of aeronautics
7 For definitions of "local" airports and the subcateory of "basic" airport, see the 2017-2022 FAA National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), Appendix C available at
https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning capacity/npias/reports/media/NPIAS-Report-2017-2021-Appendix-C.pdf.
8 For definitions of the FAA te~s "basic," "local,", and "regional" airports, see the FAA 2017-2022 NPIA report,
Appendix C, available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning capacity/npias/reports/media/NPIAS-Report-
2017-2021-Appendix-C.pdf.
10
pursuant to PUC Division 9 including PUC§ 21664.5 related to extending airport
runways.9
• Noncompliance with the Airport and Airway Improvement Act ("AAIA").
Congressional policy precludes the FAA from spending grant funds on projects having
significant environmental impacts when less environmentally impactful projects can be
carried out. Review of past county actions suggests that county views CEQA as merely
a procedural process that can be sidestepped by adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and then approving a project despite its environmental impacts.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act ("AAIA") says: "It is the policy of the United
States -[] that the safe operation of the airport and airway system is the highest
aviation priority." 49 U.S.C. §47101(a)(l). The AAIA also says that the FAA may
grant federal funding for a major airport development project ''foundto have a
significant adverse effect on natural resources, including fish and wildlife, natural,
scenic, and recreation assets, water and air quality, or another factor affecting the
environment, only after finding that no possible and prudent alternative to the project
exists and that every reasonable step has. been taken to minimize the adverse effect."
49 U.S.C § 47106(c)(l)(B). [Emphasis added.]
The county's own consultant SCS Engineers in its.October 15, 2013 report10 [which
county fails to provide] describes the significant safety and environmental problems that
a crash of a large fuel-laden C or D aircraft into the Palomar east runway end landfill
could cause. Yet it is precisely this 19 acre into which county (i) proposes to extend its
runway by up fo 800 feet, (ii) attract more, larger, faster, fuel laden aircraft, thereby (iii)
placing a downed aircraft directly in the middle of a methane, emitting landfill, which
periodically has methane gas emissions exceeding the 5% explosive limit. Moreover, as
the information provided above shows (i) county has failed repeatedly to comply with its
past Palomar landfill mitigation requirements and (ii) the mitigation described in its
2018-2038 PMP and PEIR is vague, unduly conditioned, and largely unenforceable.
Conclusion
9 PUC 21664.5 provides in relevant part: (a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion of an
existing airport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with each requirement of this article
pertaining to permits for new ai1ports. The department may by regulation provide for exemptions from the
operation of this section pursuant to Section 21661, except that no exemption shall be made limiting the
applicability of subdivision (e) of Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including the
requirement for public hearings in connection therewith. (b) As used in this section, "ailport expansion" includes
any of the following: (1) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administration
Advisory Circular 150/1500-13, or of any interest in land for the pwpose of any other expansion as set forth in this
section. (2) The construction of a new runway. (3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway. ( 4) Any other
expansion of the airport's physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to the purpose of
paragraph (1), (2), or (3). ·
10 The SCS Engineers October 15, 2013 Report is attached to the Bender PMP and PEJR comments after Part B
related to county's compliance with FAA grant funding requirements.
11
County established PMP and PMP PEIR to evaluate its PMP Alternatives as set forth in
the table below.11 For the reasons above and in our detailed PMP and PMP PEIR
comments, staff has failed to support converting Palomar from a B-II airport to any
other FAA rated airport.
County PMP/PEIR Listed Evaluation Factors to Select
PMP Project Alternative
• County's Preferred PMP Project Alternative is to convert Palomar from a B-II
Airport to a "Modified D-1II Standards Compliance" Airport.
• But extending the runway up to 800 feet on pilings through a 19-acre landfill
to convert Palomar from its existing B-II status to a C or D status fails to meet
the county listed evaluation criteria.
Factor Bender Comments
fApply equally to a Palomar Mod D-1II or C Alternative
1 Safety • Brings larger, faster, more fuel laden aircraft to middle of
runway east end methane emitting landfill;
• FAA 2011 Santa Monica Study Says B-II airports can safely
handle C and D aircraft without an EMAS;
• Since 1996, Palomar has annually handled 1,000 to 10,000
aircraft on the existing runway B-II.
• An EMAS may improve safety for aircraft taking off but can
reduce safety for landing aircraft.
2 Financial • Extending the runway on piles over the landfill costs $50,000
Feasibility a linear foot v. 2009 FAA funded runway rehabilitation cost
of $1,750 a linear foot.
• County won't even amortize its 2009 FAA runway grants
until 2029.
• If a $25 million EMAS is added, its cost needs to be added to
the financial analysis, as it is not a safety improvement but an
inherent element of a runway extension, which could not be
made in the absence of the EMAS.
• To construct the EMAS, county proposes a needless west
runway end massive retaining wall so an airport service road
around the airport can be relocated. No retaining wall is
needed. Simply tunnel for 200 feet under the runway end to
maintain the existing road.
• It appears that the retaining wall is proposed as a way to
satisfy Supervisor Hom who has consistently insisted on a
900-foot runway extension rather than 800. The PMP says
the retaining wall will preserve the 900-foot option -
apparently at an extra cost of $5 million to $9 million.
11 SEE PJ\.1P PEIR Executive Summary, pp S-1 to S-2.
12
3 Avoid • County's preferred alternative is the most tenant-disruptive
Airport because it anticipates moving tenant buildings and/or moving
Disruption GA parking off the airport.
• Also, the extension will likely require shutting down the
airport for extended periods due to the need for construction
runway extension on hundreds of deep piles rather than the
usual "cut and patch" runway extension method.12
4 Demand • As shown above, .the existing Palomar B-II airport has very
Accommo substantial existing excess capacity and future demand is
-dation minimal and shrinking.
5 Remain • We are informed and believe that (i) relocating and/or
on Airport extending the runway on the northwest comer of ECR and
Property PAR requires modification of navigation facilities on the
northeast comer of ECR and PAR at a cost of $2.8 million13
and (ii) installing retaining walls would require acquisition of
some non-airport property. Hence, we dispute county's
claim that its projects do not require development outside the
Carlsbad CUP 172 northwest comer airport premises.
6 Environm • Extending the Palomar runway east to create either an FAA
ental C-rated or D-rated airport is the most environmentally
Impacts impactful project because
(i) it requires placing several hundred very deep
pilings through a liner less, 19-acre Palomar
runway east end landfill that a 6-month
underground fire has likely converted some trash
to hazardous waste,
(ii) (ii) county already fails to meet RWQCB 1996
landfill contaminant objectives and drilling
through the landfill will exacerbate the problem,
(iii) relocating the runway north more directly
impacts threatened biological species as discussed
in the PEIR, and
(iii) (iv) county already fails to meet the Carlsbad
scenic corridor requirements by failing to shield
the ugly Palomar perimeter slopes from adjacent
areas.
12 Amazingly, contractors today can replace several tennis side patches of aircraft pavement over night in less than
8 hours using quick drying materials. See the YouTube, Smithsonian video, "Xray Mega Airport." See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY1cf0JN4yk A
13 See P11P page ES-11.
13
7 Offsite • Extending the runway eastward toward El Camino Real will
Impacts impact offsite areas the most for two reasons. First, as noted
above modifications to the FAA navigational facilities on the
northeast comer of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Road will be required. Second and more importantly, today
landing aircraft approaching Palomar from the east touch
down about 1200 feet from ECR, a major north-south arterial
adjoining the airport on the east. If an EMAS is installed on
the runway west end and the runway is extended 800 feet on
the east end, aircraft approaching Palomar will have to touch
down on the runway much sooner and approach much lower
over thousands ofECR cars using the road continuously.
8 Eligibility • For the reasons detailed above -starting with county's
for FAA breach of past FAA grant conditions by using Palomar for
Funding non-airport purposes (placing 1 million cu yds of trash in
more than 30 acres of airport canyons)-the PMP projects
fail to comply with the FAA "justification," "allowability,"
"intergovernmental cooperation," "environmental,"
"reasonable cost," and legal requirements.
I
For the foregoing reasons, we request that the Board of Supervisors:
(i) Reject staff's PMP project alternative and retain Palomar as a B-11 airport;
(ii) Instruct staff to either comply with Carlsbad MC §21.53.015 and Carlsbad
Conditional Use Permit 172 or withdraw from CUP 172 by giving Carlsbad a
reasonable notice conditioned upon county processing its 2018-2038 as an
element of the County General Plan [ which now applies to only unincorporated •
areas] to assure that county applies its airport General Plan policies -which now
apply to only 6 of the county airports -to all county airports including to
Palomar and to Gillespie;
(iii) Refuse to certify the PMP Programmatic EIR until staff corrects the deficiencies
noted in our comments and require recirculation of the draft PEIR due to it,many
defects;
(iv) If the Board approves staff's recommendations (including but not limited to
adopting the PMP and certifying the PMP PEIR), instruct airport staff, if staff
has not already done so to immediately provide, a copy of its FAA updated
Palomar Airport Layout Plan (part ofthe adopted PMP) to the San Diego
Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) so that the
14
(v)
(vi)
ALUC can update the McClellan-Palomar Land Use Compatibility Plan to assure
its consistency with the PMP;
If the Board approves staffs PMP and PMP PEIR recommendations instruct
staff-after the ALUC noted in item (iv) above updates its Palomar Land Use
Compatibility Plan and after Carlsbad certifies the consistency of the county
PMP with the Carlsbad General Plan, apply to the State of California Division of
Aeronautics for an amended Palomar operating permit consistent with the Board
of Supervisors PMP adopted; and · ·
Include all of our comments related to the BOS consideration of the PMP and
PEIR in the administrative record so they are readily available for any court
review of the Board's actions on the PMP and/or PMP PEIR.
Thank you for your.consideration of our comments, which we submit as taxpayers, payers of
airport user fees, and commenters on the county PMP and PEIR.
JUNE 6, 2019 REPRODUCTION OF BENDER MARCH 19;
2019 COMMENTS ON COUNTY PALOMAR MASTER
PLAN SHOWING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CARLSBAD
2015 GENERAL PLAN AND COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Part A
Comments on County Coinpliance with ·
California, Carlsbad, and County Planning Requirements
[Related to County PMP and PEIR Alternative Evaluation Criteria #6 (Environmental
Compliance]
Executive Summary
County has asked for comments on its 2018 -2038 McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport
Master Plan (PMP) and on its PMP Programmatic EIR.14 Our comments below focus on what,
if any, Carlsbad General plan and/or County General Plan policies apply to the Palomar Airport
development over the next 20 Years.
· Carlsbad in March 2018 commented on various county 2018 -2038 PMP deficiencies,
omissions, and irregularities. Because we focu~ on a larger issue in this Part A PMP discussion,
we do not repeat or embellish on the Carlsbad comments (except to the extent our Part C
14 We understand county to say that the Programmatic EIR is not intended to analyze all or perhaps even most PivlP
project elements and county will perform supplemental CEQA analysis as individual projects arise. We remind
county of two things. First, even a Programmatic EIR must environmentally analyze project elements in sufficient
detail that the Board of Supervisors can intelligently decide whether to commit the county to a 20-year course of
action that has severe consequences.
15
comments refer to both the county PMP and PEIR). But we do adopt the Carlsbad comments to
preserve our right to raise them in subsequent proceedings.
Palomar Airport Proiect Background
County defines its project as (i) converting Palomar Airport from an FAA-rated B-II Airport
handling smaller, slower, less fuel-laden aircraft to an FAA-rated D-111 Modified Standards
Compliance Airport increasingly handling faster, larger, more fuel-laden aircraft and (ii)
implementing 16 specific project elements.
County's largest, most-expensive projects include installation of two runway safety systems;
extending the runway up to 800-feet over a 19 acre Unit 3 Palomar closed landfill, possibly in
two increments of 200-feet and 600-feet;and relocating the runway north about 120 feet within
13 to 20 years. To complete its projects, county wants to install two massive retaining walls
with undefined lengths butperhaps 50 feet high along the Palomar east side runway and along
the south east side of the airport along Palomar Airport Road near El Camino Real.
In 2016 dollars, county estimates its cost at from $112,000,00 to $124,000,000. County
estimates the cost of the 600-foot extension alone at $30,000,000. In 2009, the FAA gave
county $8.6 million to tear up and rehabilitate the entire existing 4900-foot runway.
The extremely high cost of the runway extension results from the county in the 1960s and 1970s
filling Palomar Airport canyons with about 1 million cubic yards of trash. The three county-
created landfills have very unstable soil. To compensate for bad soil, county wants to sink
several hundred holes for pilings, each 15 feet to 40 feet deep, through the trash, to support
grade beams, which in turn will support the runway extension.
County asks for comments on 8 possible project alternative listed in Table 4-1 on p. 4-17 of its
PEIR. Conceptually, these 8 alternatives fall into three categories. First, do no project or
perhaps add only a west end Palomar runway safety system (EMAS). Second, convert Palomar
from a B airport to a C airport handling larger, faster aircraft. Third, convert Palomar from a B
airport to a D airport handling ever larger, faster aircraft. The second and third categories are
substantially the same. With either, the community gets a relocated, very long, very expensive
runway.
County says it will choose an alternative using 8 criteria: Safety, Cost, Minimizing Impacts to
its Tenants, Ability to Serve Current and New Demand, Staying on the Northwest comer of
ECR and PAR, Environmental Impacts, Off-Airport Impacts, and Ability to Qualify for FAA
Grants. If airports qualify for FAA grants, the FAA may provide up to 90% of project costs.
The Carlsbad-County "40-Year War ofthe Roses"
County started Palomar Airport operations near Carlsbad in the mid 1950s, initially in an
unincorporated county area. Because county wanted Carlsbad city services, including utilities
and fire suppression for Palomar, Carlsbad annexed Palomar Airport into Carlsbad.
16
County then asked Carlsbad to rezone the airport property. County also asked Carlsbad to issue
Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 to define what county future .airport developments
would and would not require Carlsbad approval. Carlsbad approved CUP 172 in 1980.
At that time, Carlsbad residents became concerned that the county wanted to expand Palomar
by adding a second runway or by extending the existing runway. The residents circulated an
initiative petition. The petition said Carlsbad residents wanted to vote on any Palomar
expansion that would involve Carlsbad city council action.
Seeing the "writing on the wall," the Carlsbad city council simply adopted verbatim the
initiative petition language into the Carlsbad Municipal Code -as the State elections code then
allowed.
It appears that in the 1980s, Carlsbad was a "general law'' city. It also appears that at that time,
the State Aeronautics Act ( contained in the State Public Utilities Code) expressly defined
runway extensions as airport "expansions."15 As a general law city, Carlsbad was bound by the
Aeronautics Act definition of expansion.
In addition, the Carlsbad and county records show that when county requested CUP 172, county
prepared a Table 1 that listed the future improvements it could make at Palomar. County's list
referred to runways. When the Carlsbad city council adopted CUP 171, Table 1 did not include
runways. In addition, CUP 172, Conditions 8 and 11, said that county would not expand
Palomar without Carlsbad permission and would keep Palomar airport as a "general aviation
basic transport" airport. ·
Thirty-five years of Carlsbad-county correspondence suggests that county has made every effort
to sidestep Carlsbad review of Palomar Airport projects. County states in its 2018 -2038 PMP
and PEIR that it is not subject to Carlsbad law, and that county has on occasion voluntarily
complied with CUP 172 to maintain good relationships with Carlsbad.
Yet county in 1997/1998 -although it started processing its last Palomar Master Plan to the
Carlsbad City Council -withdrew the plan at the last moment.
. 15 See PUC§ 21664.5. (a) An amended airport permit shall be required for evelJ, ·expansion of an existing airport.
An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with each requirement of this article pertaining to
permits for new airports. The department may by regulation provide for exemptions from the operation of this
section pursuant to Section 21661, except that no exemption shall be made limiting the applicability of subdivision
(e) of Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including the requirement for public hearings in
connection therewith.
(b) As used in this section, "airport expansion " includes 'any of the following:
(1) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
150/1500-13, or of any interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion as set forth in this section.
(2) The construction of a new runway.
(3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway.
(4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to
the purpose of paragraph (1), (2), or (3). * * *
17
The legal arguments as to what procedures the county must follow to process its 2018 -203 8
Palomar Master Plan are complicated. Many of the relevant laws and issues are discussed in
Part C of these comments. Why in Part C. Because when preparing a California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) EIR, the county must discuss the substantive and procedural "land use"
rules that apply to the development of a county airport and the area surrounding the airport. If
county fails to properly discuss them in the EIR, the EIR will be defective.
We begin this Part A by focusing on a unique issue created by the county's 2018 -2038
position. Assume (until you read Part C Comments) that county is correct in saying that county
can ignore Carlsbad laws, including CUP 172 and MC§ 21.53.015. What are the
consequences?
Relationship ofthe County Palomar Master Plan to the County General Plan and to the
Carlsbad 2015 General Plan and to the County Programmatic EIR.
Assume Carlsbad laws do not apply to Palomar Airport when county modifies its Palomar
infrastructure like the runway.16 Do any laws apply? If not, is Palomar -which by its noise,
pollution, and traffic it induces -impacts up to 400,000 people in Carlsbad, Encinitas,
Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista -an unregulated island? In other words, can county do as it
wishes essentially without any review? This is the issue this Part A focuses on.
The California Legislature in the California Government Code commands counties and cities to
adopt General Plans, usually for 20-year periods. These ,plans must analyze many issues
including transportation issues. The legislative goal is simple: Write roadmaps to avoid willy-
nilly development. And avoid conflicts as cities and counties butt up against each other.
In 2015 Carlsbad updated its latest General Plan (GP). The GP adopts many policies, some
applicable to Palomar Airport. But Carlsbad in 2015 did not know that county intended to
spend $100,000,000 to expand Palomar Airport. So the 2015 Carlsbad GP discusses Palomar
Airport relatively briefly.
County has also adopted a General Plan. But its GP seems to say that it applies only to
unincorporated areas of the county. Palomar Airport is county property within the city of
Carlsbad (now a chartered city, not a general law city).17 So it would seem that the county GP
applies only to 6 of the 8 airports that county operates, but not to Palomar or to Gillespie, which
respectively are in the cities of Carlsbad and El Cajon. An independent Airport Authority (the
San Diego Regional Airport Authority or SDRAA), not the county, operates San Diego
International Airport at Lindbergh Field.
16 It appears that county does concede that Carlsbad can to an extent apply Carsbad laws to Palomar private
tenants. Why? Because private persons can not claim the "sovereign immunity" that governmental entities can
claim.
17 Generally, charter cities have a greater ability to control development within their city. Once chartered, they
only have to comply with a fraction of the general state laws that apply to general cities. Whether Carlsbad or state
law will apply in a given case depends on whether a disputed issue involves a so-called "municipal affair"
impacting primarily local reidents.
18
We now come to the $64 Question: If county says it will ignore Carlsbad law and if the county
General Plan applies only to the 6 county airports in unincorporated areas, does Palomar
develop and operate without restriction? County needs to answer this question. In fact, the
county 2018 -2038 PJ\IIP and PEIR need to answer many questions. A few are as follows:
1. County General Plan
a. Does county claim its GP and GP policies limit Paloi:nar Airport Development?
If so, what are the specific, existing, relevant GP provisions that say so?
b. What is the relationship, if any, of the Palomar Master Plan to the county GP?
Does county intent to process the PJ\IIP as part of county's GP? If so, what
process will the Board of Supervisors follow? What notices will be given to
individual residents and businesses near Palomar Airport?
c. If county GP policies do not apply to Palomar Airport, does county contend it is
complying with the State m.andate to develop a GP for the area within the
county?
d. Assuming state law does say that counties need not comply with city law ( and
cities need not comply with county law), can the county -in order to avoid the.
type of legal vacuum noted above -voluntarily submit itself to the laws of a
city?
e. When county (i) asked Carlsbad to annex Palomar so that Palomar Airport could
receive Carlsbad services, (ii) asked Carlsbad to rezone the Palomar Airport site,
(iii) asked Carlsbad to issue CUP 172 defining the terms of Palomar Airport
expansion did Carlsbad and the county essentially enter into a contract that is
· binding unl,ess and until the Board of Supervisors formally withdraw from it?
f. If county does not intend to comply with the Carlsbad 2015 GP ( or if county is
making the illusory promise that county may comply if and when coru;ity deems
compliance to be in the county interest), why does county in the several hundred
pages of its 2018 -203 8 repeatedly include City of Carlsbad law as part of the
applicable "Regulatory Framework" that governs the 16 county PJ\IIP public
infrastructure projects?
g. Does the county write a misleading PJ\IIP when it lists page after page of
allegedly applicable Carlsbad laws that county intends to ignore?
h. If the county GP (or major parts of it) applies (apply) only to 6 of the 8 county
airports, is it misleading for the county2018 -2038 PJ\IIP and PEIR to repeatedly
refer to county GP policies allegedly governing Palomar Airport?
19
1. Where is the list of county GP policies that do and do not apply to Palomar
Airport?
2. Carlsbad 2015 General Plan Policies
a. Which, if any of these, apply to Palomar Airport development? .
b. Can both Carlsbad GP and county GP policies apply to Palomar Airport
development?
On-Airport or Off-Airport?
Notice that up until now, the discussion has focused only on development on Palomar Airport
property. But Palomar operations can impact thousands of people in homes and businesses
around Palomar airport. Those people live in the city of Carlsbad. And Palomar Airport
development and operation may interfere with their ability to use their property as they wish.
Suppose a landowner within a mile of the Palomar runway approach wants to build a 3-story
building. Can she?
.. The California legislature addresses this issue in two ways. First, by Government Code §
65402(b ), the legislature says that counties operating airports within cities need to present their
airport master plan to such cities. Second, by the Public Utilities Code the legislature has said
that on-airport and off-airport development should be made compatible. How? By a two step-
process.
First, for San Diego, the SDRAA Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) writes a plan to
assure on-airport and off-airport developJ?lent are compatible. The plan is called a Land Use
Compatibility Plan. McClellan-Palomar has one, written by the ALUC.
Second, the ALUC then turns to the city in which the airport is located. For Palomar, the
ALUC turns to Carlsbad. Why? Because the ALUC has no planning or zoning authority in the
city of Carlsbad or in any other city, such as El Cajon, in which an airport may be located. The
ALUC then expects Carlsbad to assure that Carlsbad planning and zoning are made consistent
with Palomar Airport development. 18 ·
The process and provisions above suggest a simple conclusion. The legislature expected county
airport owners and cities in which such airports operate to assure that airport development
would not be undertaken until it was determined to be consistent with the city's General Plan
and compatible with the ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Discussion
18 The discussion in this paragraph is overly simplified. First, there may in fact be uses near airports, which are
incompatible with airport development. But such uses may be "grandfathered in." Second, though cities can
disagree with ALUC findings, certain consequences may result.
20
Does the County 2018 -2038 PMP and PEIR Comply with State, Carlsbad, and County
· Law? ·
Preliminary Comment
The questions and requests below refer only to county Palomar infrastructure
development, not to development by Palomar tenants or other private parties.
I. PMP Project Violations of County General Plan Policies
1. Failure 1: County General Plan Non Compiiance. County has failed to prepare, circulate
for public collllilent, and adopt a General Plan to explain the planning requirements that
apply to county facilities within cities including but not limited to the policies applicable to
Palomar Airport and Gillespie Airport.
a. BENDER REQUEST (BR) 1: Explain whether the Palomar Master Plan is part
of the county's General Plan (GP)?
b. BR2: Identify the'specific county General Plan provisions that will apply to the
PMP projects the specific GP provisions that make those planning provisions
applicable to those projects.
c. BR 3: Identify the specific county GP and Carlsbad GP provisions that apply to
county's extension of the Palomar Airport runway.
d. BR 4: Explain how county GP policies are enforceable when the County
General Plan says they apply to unincorporated county areas only.
e. BR 5: If during a Palomar PMP project an issue arises as to whether a county
GP policy applies, who makes that determination? Identify the relevant county
GP or other provision that provides guidance on the foregoing question.
2. Failure 2: County Zoning Non Compliance. County has failed to prepare, circulate for
public comment, and adopt zoning requirements that apply to county facilities within cities
including but not limited to the requirements applicable to Palomar Airport.
a. BR 6: Identify the specific County zoning provisions that apply to extending the
Palomar Airport runway if Carlsbad zoning does not apply.
b. BR 7. Does county contend that some Carlsbad zoning provisions apply and
others do not as county determines.
c. BR 8. Who in the county has the authority to answer requests BR 1 to BR 8?
Only the Board of Supervisors or county staff? If county staff, who on county
21
staff? If county staff, identify the relevant county rule or policy that allows the
designated person to make the determination.
3. Failure 3: County CEQA Mitigation Non Compliance.19 County claims that when it
develops and operates county facilities, it mitigates at least in part, the significant
impacts of such facilities by applying the policies throughout its General Plan.
However, when county follows neither the policies ofits General Plan nor the General
Plan policies of the cities in which it operates its facilities, county b.as failed to adopt
enforceable mitigation measures as required by state law.
a. BR 9: Identify all the specific mitigation measures that the PMP imposes to
assure county's proposed PMP projects are mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible.
b. BR 10: Identify the specific county mechanisms that make the PMP mitigation
measures enforceable.
c. BR 11: Does county content that the Palomar Master Plan is a Community Plan
within the meaning of the county General Plan? If so, identify the county GP
provisions that support the county's contention.
4. Failure 4: County's PMP Projects Violate Many County General Plan Land Use
Policies. As noted above, county may not plan, locate, improve, and operate its
facilities, including those at Palomar Airport, in a vacuum. Either county's General
Plan policies apply to Palomar or Carlsbad General Plan policies apply to Palomar or
no policies apply. County's current position seems to be that no general plan policies
apply to Palomar. It is likely that if County adopted a proper countywide General
Plan arid adopted county rather than Carlsbad General Plan policies for airports,
county would apply those policies it uses for its 6 airports in unincorporated areas to
all 8 airports.2° County's PMP violates various county General Plan policies as set
forth below.
a. County Land Use Goal LU-4. The PMP violates County GP Land Use Goal LU-
4, which provides: Inter-jurisdictional Coordination. Coordination with the
plans and activities of other agencies -that relate to issues such as land use,
community character, transportation, energy, other infrastructure, public
safety, and resource conservation and management. In 2017 community
residents formed the non-profit group Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4FA).
C4FA maintains a community website at C4FA.org. At the above-referenced
meeting among representatives of Carlsbad, county, and C4FA, one thing
19 County's General Plan discussion of Community Plans states: "Mitigation measures in the EIR are incorporated
both as policies in the General Plan and as implementatiqn measures ion the Implementation Plan and
consequently, the GP, is generally considered to be "self-mitigation." Seep. 1-13.
20 As County's General Plan notes, county has formulated Community Plans for specific areas. These plans can
tailor the county's overall goals and policies to specific areas based on the characteristics of those areas. Hence,
the county plans for its airports in the 6 unincorporated areas provide substantial insight as to the county desires. A
properly updated county General Plan could apply the county GP policies to Palomar and Gillespie.
22
became clear. Carlsbad residents believe county cannot carry out its 2018-2038
PMP projects unless Carlsbad voters first approve them. County denies this.
A legal disagreement exists. If county opposes a vote, it is incumbent on county
to file a declaratory relief action so that the San Diego Superior Court can
decide the rights of the parties. Asking the Board of Supervisors to approve the
PMP before obtaining such a declaration would be inconsistent with County
Land Use Goal LU-4. Supporting this conclusion is county's broken promise
when it adopted its prior PMP, namely its 1997-2017 PMP. That PMP
promised that if county added new acreage for parking at Palomar, county
would obtain a vote of the people. Yet in 2004, county moved airport parking to
three new land parcels, claiming at the time that no vote of the people was
required.
b. County Land Use Policy L U-6.10: Protection from Hazards. This policy
"require(s) that development be located and designed to protect property and
residents from the risks of natural and man-induced hazards." As noted in detail
in our Part C PMP and PEIR comments, county fllled airport canyons with
trash rather than clean fill dirt so that county could extend the Palomar Airport
runway. Mter operating 3 different Palomar landfills for a total of 14 years,
county closed them. Then mismanaged them resulting in several underground
landfill fires, which burned for over 6-months. Mismanagement included
allowing county contractors to crush an underground storm drain, which
county failed to discover until the underground Unit 3 fire caused steam to vent
from the ground some time later. County also failed to include 3-foot thick clay
bottom landfill liners.
As county's own SCS Engineers October 15, 2013 report amply shows, even if
county never extended the Palomar runway, an aircraft crash into the 19 acre
Unit 3 landfill directly adjacent to the Palomar runway east end could cause
significant safety and environmental problems. Even without such a crash,
letters from the 2016 and 2017 letters from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board state that county has failed to meet the water quality objectives that the
RWQCB imposed on county in 1996. Compounding this series of errors,
county's 2018 -2037 PMP proposes extending the runway by drilling hundreds
of very deep holes through the landfill trash (now likely converted to hazardous
waste by the fires), which will simply allow garbage juice to migrate faster into
the ground and ground waters underlying the airport." Similarly, by planning
to convert Palomar airport from a B-11 airport handling slower, smaller, less
fuel-laden aircraft to a D-111 airport handling faster, larger, much more fuel-
laden aircraft and by planning to serve more than 500,000 passengers at
Palomar, county violates LU-6.10.
c. County's Land Use Policy LU-16.2 Integrity of Waste Management Facilities.
This policy states county should "Avoid encroachment of incompatible land uses
upon solid was(e facilities in order to minimize or avoid potential conflicts." Yet
county's PMP proposes (i) extending the Palomar runway on hundreds of
23
pilings, each 15 to 40 feet deep, in holes drilled through formerly household
trash now converted to hazardous material as a result of underground fires
resulting from negligent county management of the Palomar landfill sites even
though (ii) county built the landfills without the now common 3-foot clay
protective bottom liners and even though (iii) the RWQCB advised county in
2016 and 3017 that county has never met the contaminant objectives in the
RWQCB Order 96-13 and even though (iv) the county's own consultant, SCS
Engineers, in its October 15, 2013 report listed the many significant safety and
environmental hazards that would result from a large aircraft crashing into the
Palomar Unit 3 landfill, which comprises the runway safety area at the end of
the Palomar runway. So county's PMP projects violate county LU-16.2.
BR 12: Explain how county complies with the county GP policies set forth in
this Item 4.
BR 13: County Compliance with General Plan Land Use Policy 16-2. Attach to
the Final PMP and PEIR all documents that County reviewed to assure (aa) ·
that county was complying with county General Plan LU Policy 16-2 and (bb)
to assure that placing hundreds of deep piles through the Unit 3 Landfill did not
interfere with the integrity of the Palomar Unit 3 solid waste landfill including
its extensive methane gas collection system.
5. Failure 5: County's PMP Projects Violate County General Plan Mobility Policies.
a. County Mobility Policy M-7.1: Meeting Airport Needs. This policy states county
shall "operate and improve airport facilities to meet air transportation needs in a
manner that adequately considers impacts to environmental resources and
surrounding communities and to ensure consistency with Airport Land Use
. Compatibility Plans. "
i. Excess Existing Capacity. County's data shows that Palomar already has
excess capacity and no runway extension is needed. County forecasts
208,000 annual operations by 2038. Yet, nearly 20 years ago, county
handled 286,000 annual operations. Moreover, county's hoped for
500,000 new passengers could easily be handled on only 10,000 aircraft
(50 passengers per aircraft), which is only 5% of the predicted Palomar
· flight volume.
ii. County's "Long Distance" Fallacy 1. County tried to justify its 2011
Runway Feasibility ~tudy and its 2018 PMP Study by alleging it needed
a longer runway to allow existing aircraft to fly internationally. County
simply assumed -without any historical proof in the record -that 40%
of future Palomar flights would operate at 90% load rather than 60%
load. Yet the recently retired Airport Director said in December 2017
24
that he was only familiar with one aircraft per week that had to use
Lindbergh to take on more fuel to fly to China.
iii. County's "Long Distance" Fallacy 2. County's 2018 -2038 PMP
proposes relocating the runway 120 feet north and extending it from
5100 feet (after a first runway extension of 200-feet) to 5700 feet more
than 15 years from now. County has made no showing that 40% of
aircraft wishing to fly internationally could in fact take on a 90% rather
than 60% load with a 5100 foot runway, only 200 feet longer than the
current 4900 foot runway.
b. BR 14: Attach to the final PMP and PEIR (i) the county analysis showing that
county has complied with Mobility Policy M-7.1.)
6. Failure 6: County's PMP Projects Violate County General Plan Open Space
Requirements.
a. County PMP Projects Violate Conservation of open Space (COS) Policy 11-1. This
policy requires the protection of scenic highways and landscapes. Carlsbad has
designated Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real as scenic corridors. County
has refused to install permanent landscaping along the Palomar Airport perimeters
both west of ECR and east of ECR. · East of ECR has no landfills but is airport
owned property essential to airport uses. County's PMP fails to require the
necessary landscaping. Such landscaping would both meet Carlsbad's scenic
corridor requirement and also help to mitigate the adverse air quality impacts from
airport landfills, which periodically allow the escape of methane gas into the air.
b. County PMP Projects Violate COS 11.4: Coordination with Carlsbad for Scenic
Highway Protection. COS 11.4 requires the county.to coordinate with jurisdictions
impacted by its projects. Carlsbad has long complained to county about county's
failure to properly landscape the Palomar Airport perimeter slopes. County cannot
in good faith claim it is protecting the scenic highways along Palomar Airport when
county has had 35 years to correct the ugly slopes it maintains at Palomar for at least
60% of the year.
c. BR 15: The burden of proof is on county to show that it cannot comply with
Carlsbad scenic landscape requirements along the airport perimeter. Explain why
county in 35 years has attractively landscaped the Palomar northwest and northeast
ECR and PAR. Identify in the county 2018 -2038 PMP and PEIR the provisions that
assure Carlsbad and the public that county will solve this problem within a very
short timeframe or pay Carlsbad a sufficient sum to take s.ome measures itself to
correct the problem.
7. Failure 7: County's PMP Projects Violate County General Plan Safety Requirements.
25
a. County PMP Projects Violate County General Plan Safety Policy S-11.1:
Hazardous Material Storage. This policy requires that "land uses, involving the
storage, transfer, or processing of hazardous materials be located and designed to
minimize risk and comply with all applicable hazardous materials regulations."
i. Palomar Airport 1 Million Cubic Yards of "Household" Waste. Carlsbad
says that comity dumped about 1 million cubic yards of waste in the County
Unit 1 and Unit 2 landfills adjoining the southern Palomar runway border and
the 19-acre Unit 3 landfill adjoining the runway east end.
· ii. Palomar Airport Hazardous Waste. In the last 15 years, county has had
several underground Palomar landfill fires including the one in Unit 3, which
burned for about 6 months. Various governmental entities report that burning
household waste including plastics, Styrofoam, hundreds of thousands of
batteries, and common building remodeling materials convert inert waste to
hazardous waste.
iii. Palomar Methane Gas Collection System. Decomposing landfills naturally
create methane gas even if no hazardous materials were present. County has
constructed an extensive network of methane gas plastic piping through the
landfills to collect such gas. Such plastic pipes in the vicinity of the fire
would have burned and concurrently created defects in the collection system.
iv. RWQCB 2016 & 2017 Noncompliance Letters. By Order 96-13, the
RWQCB required county to meet certain water quality objectives for
multiple Palomar landfill contaminants. As shown by county's 2016 landfill
monitoring report, county continues to report those contaminants
v. County Burden. Given the above information, it is county's PMP and EIR
burden to show how (aa) the Palomar underground fires affected the dumped
trash and methane collection piping system and (bb) the migration oflikely
hazardous garbage juice if pilings are augured through the trash, and (cc) the
damage to the remaining methane collection system if holes are drilled
through the landfill.
vi. County 's Runway Extension Piling Drilling Program. County proposes to
extend the runway eastward by drilling hundreds of holes to support pilings
each 15 feet to 40 feet deep, which in turn will support grade beams
supporting the runway extension.
vii. County's Proposed Runway Relocation 120 Feet North. Similarly, county's
proposal to relocate the entire rw:iway about 120 feet north and again extend
the runway risks further safety and environmental problems as the Unit 3 19-
acre landfill fills the entire area to the east of the runway.
26
viii. Threat to Ground and Ground Waters and Air Quality. For the above
reasons, county's proposed Palomar runway projects pose a significant risk
to the ground and ground waters in the Palomar Airport vicinity. Similarly,
digging up and/or destroying many acres of the Unit 3 landfill to extend the
runway will leave the decaying trash without an efficient and pervasive
methane gas collection system during project construction, thus damaging the
air quality as methane vents into the air.
ix. Threats from Aircraft Crashing into the Unit 3 Landfill. County's PMP says
county wants to convert Palomar from its current FAA-rated B-11 status to a
"Modified CID" status.
21 CUP 172, Condition 11.
1. Small v. Large Aircraft Risks. According to Conditional Use Permit
172 that county requested and accepted from Carlsbad, county is
supposed to operate as a "general aviation basic transport" airport.21
Recreational general aviation aircraft typically weigh less than 12,500
pounds. Corporate aircraft using Palomar, with few exceptions, have
weighed less than 60,000 pounds. Small aircraft also fly at lower
speeds and carry significantly less fuel than C and D aircraft. Small
aircraft and corporate jets carry typically carry few people.
2. Crashes of Large Aircraft into the Palomar Unit 3 Landfill Create
Significant Safety Risks to the Landfill and to Passengers Aboard the
Aircraft. The county's October 2013 SCS Engineers report entitled
"Evaluation of Possible Environmental Impacts of a Potential
Aircraft Crash into the Landfill Cover at Palomar Airport Landfill,
Carlsbad, California-lists in detail _the many significant risks that
large aircraft crashing into a methane gas collecting landfill can
cause.
Converting Palomar to a "modified CID" airport greatly increases risk
in three ways. First, such larger aircraft carry significant hazardous ·
materials m the aircraft airframe in addition to much larger quantities
of aviation fuel. Second these aircraft travel at much faster speeds.
Newton's law tells us that very heavy objects travelling at very fast
speeds create very deep impacts. At Palomar, an impact that can
easily damage the methane collection system just 4 to 7 feet below
the soil surface. Third, county's PMP says county anticipates
handling 500,000 passengers annually on larger aircraft in the future
rather than the current 50,000 on smaller aircraft. County's PMP EIR
fails to analyze these issues. In fact, county's EIR totally ignores the
above noted SCS Engineers report despite the fact that we on multiple
occasions in the last three years have asked county to address the
issue -including in our extensive PMP EIR scoping comments about
a year ago.
27
x. Landfill Discussion Absent from County 2010 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan. San Diego County in 2010 released a 686-page report
entitled "Multi-Jurisdictional hazard Mitigation Plan." On the title page, the
report says Carlsbad is included as a Participating Jurisdiction. Separate
searches for the words "McClellan" and "landfill" produced no results. Thus
County has failed to implement State-required General Plan elements for
managing sites contaminated with hazardous materials.
b. County PMP Projects Violate County General Plan Safety Policy S-11.4:
Contaminated Lands. This policy requires "area of known or suspected
contamination to be assessed prior to reuse. The reuse shall be in a manner that is
compatible with the nature of the contamination and subsequent remediation
efforts."
c. :SR 16. Explain in county's PMP and PEIR how county is complying with the
county General Plan Safety policies noted above.
II. PMP Project Violations of City of Carlsbad
2015-2035 General Plan Policies
As noted above, in 1980 county requested Carlsbad to rezone the Palomar Airport
property and to issue Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 setting the conditions
which governed county's operation of Palomar Airport. Part I above lists the county
General Plan policies, which county's 2017-2037 Palomar Master Plan (PMP) violate.
This Part II lists the Carlsbad General Plan policies, which the PMP violates. Because
county staff has said in recent meetings and in its 2018 -2038 PMP and PEIR that it will
comply with Carlsbad laws only when and if county chooses to do so, the below discussion
does not list all Carlsbad 2015 GP policies that apply to Palomar Airport development.
Preliminarily, note that county in 1997 adopted its 1997-2037 Palomar Master
Plan. As a result, the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) as required by state law, updated the Palomar Land Use
Compatibility Plan to assure that development in areas surrounding Palomar Airport
were compatible with airport operations. Carlsbad accepted this updated Compatibility
Land Use Plan and also updated its Carlsbad General Plan to assure consistency with
Palomar Airport operations. In other words, county's adoption of its 1997-2037 PMP
triggered amendments to then existing Carlsbad General Plan. Similarly, county's
adoption of its 2018-2038 PMP will also trigger an updated Land Use Compatibility Plan
and updated Carlsbad General Plan.
28
8. Failure 8: County's PMP Projects Violate Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Policies.
22
a. Violation of Carlsbad Land Use Policy 2-P.1. The polic;y requires that projects
"maintain consistency between the General Plan and Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance).
i. Carlsbad MC§ 21.53.015. This section allows Carlsbad voters to vote on
whether county should expand Palomar Airport if the Airport is
expanded and Carlsbad legislative action is required.
1. PMP Expansion .. As noted in the first few pages of our Part A
comments, Palomar runway extensions are Palomar expansions.
2. Carlsbad Legislative Act. County's PMP adoption will require
Carlsbad to take two legislative actions. First, the Carlsbad
Council will have to act on the updated Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan that the PMP will trigger with the SDRAA
ALUC. Second, Carlsbad will have to update its 2015 Carlsbad
General Plan to address the land use, mobility, safety, and noise
issues triggered by county's proposed 2018 -2038 projects.
Carlsbad in the last decade has updated its General Plan as a
result of Palomar Airport operational and development changes.
ii. Carlsbad CUP 172: County Runway Extension Requires Carlsbad
Discretionary Approvals.
1. CUP 172 Table 1 Projects. In 1980, county requested and accepted
CUP 172, the document that explains what improvements county
may undertake at Palomar without Carlsbad action. C(JP 172
Table 1 lists these projects. Runway extensions are not included
in the project list. In fact, county prepared the original Table 1
and included runway extensions as projects it could undertake
without Carlsbad action.· Carlsbad deleted the runway extension
from the list. Moreover, in 1997 -when county was processing its
1997-2017 PMP, county again prepared a revised CUP 172 Table
1 to include runway extensions.22 Carlsbad did not accept
county's table and took no action to add county's changes.
2. CUP 172 Condition 8 requires Carlsbad Planning Commission
approval for airport extensions. But the adoption of CUP 172 was
a Carlsbad City Council legislative act, and its amendment to
allow county projects not covered by CUP 172 requires a City
Council legislative act.
29
23
iii. BR 17. Explain in the PMP and PEIR how and why county disagrees
with the foregoing analysis.
b. Violation of CarlsbadLand Use Policy 2-P.27: Limit Transportation Intensive
Development. This policy states: "Limit general industrial development within
the community to those areas and uses with adequate transportation access. These
areas should be compatible with surround land uses including residential
neighborhoods."
i. The 2015 Carlsbad General Plan says traffic on Palomar Airport Road
and El Camino Real along Palomar Airport at peak periods are near
gridlock, namely LOS D and E.
ii. Concededly, county cannot limit an increase of aircraft flights and
passengers handled at Palomar at the existing facilities. Palomar now
has substantial excess capacity without modifying the runway. In 1999,
Palomar handled 286,000 flights compared to the 2017 level of about
· 155,000 flights.
iii. However, the FAA recognizes that local authorities, not the FAA, decide
whether airports should be expanded.
iv. The county PMP plans projects, which will materially increase traffic.
loads on the already gridlocked PAR and ECR. These projects are
elevating Palomar from its now B-11 status to a modified CID status to
handle larger, more passenger intensive aircraft; extending the runway;
and relocating the runway 120 feet to the north to create a larger
buildable airport footprint and eliminate parking used by small
recreational flyers.
1. County projects future passenger levels at 500,000 or more rather
than 50,000.23 Each trip generates 2.6 vehicle trips per county's
PEIR and hence 1,600,000 more trips on PAR and ECR, already
having an LOS F load. Moreover, as we point out in our Part C
comments, county ignores the non-air carrier people using
Palomar. So persons in general aviation aircraft, corporate
aircraft, chartered aircraft, and helicopters are not counted. So
Palomar induced traffic trips in reality exceed 2,000,000
annually. ·
2. Moreover, only up to 20,000 flights of Palomar's current 155,000
flights are by CID aircraft. County's plan to convert Palomar to
a "modified C'D" airport means that county plans to displace the
30
recreational flyers whose aircraft are parked on the north
terminal, which area will be displaced by the relocated runway.
3. As a result instead of having 10% to 15% of flights being CID
flights, it is likely that more than half of the flights will be CID
aircraft.
v. County and Carlsbad in the last decade have repeatedly indicated their
opposition to Carlsbad voters voting on airport expansion.
vi. The county's 2018 -2038 PMP and PMP EIR similarly recognize no role
for a Carlsbad community vote.
vii. With or without a vote, the county's planned PMP projects violate
Carlsbad policy 2-P.27
viii. BR 18. Explain in the PMP and PEIR how county is complying with
Carlsbad Land Use Policy 2-P.27.
c. Violation of Carlsbad Policy 2-P.39: Airport Expansion and Carlsbad Action on
Updated SDRAA Palomar Airport Land Use Plan and Updated Carlsbad General
Plan.
1. Carlsbad's actions over the last decade make clear that the county and
Carlsbad city council does not intend to seek a vote of Carlsbad residents
before (aa) acting on county's 2017-2037 PMP, (bb) acting on the
SDRAA ALUC new CLUP triggered by the PMP, or (cc) updating the
Carlsbad 2015 General Plan to assure compatibility of the county 2017-
2037 with the Carlsbad 2015 General Plan.
ii. Such lack of a vote violates Carlsbad MC § 21.53.015 and Carlsbad 2015
General Plan Policy 2-P.39.
iii BR 19. Explain how the county PMP and PEIR complies with Carlsbad
Land Use Policy 2-P.39.
9. Failure 9: County's PMP Projects Violate Carlsbad General Plan Air Quality Policies.
a. Violation of Carlsbad Air Quality 4-P.52, 4-P.55, and 4-P.56: These policies
require county to participate in transportation demand management programs
on a regional basis and to cooperate with APCD and the ARB to improve air
quality issues associated with Palmar Airport and to minimize air quality
grading impacts. County's 2018 -2038 PMP and PMP EIR do not do this.
31
i. Leaded Small Aircraft Aviation Fuel. In November 2017, I visited
Palomar Airport for a tour of the airport provided by the Palomar
Operational staff. The tour included drives past the aviation storage
facilities. County's PMP does not discuss the issue including when lead
will be banned from aviation fuel for smaller aircraft. Nor does county
discuss what air quality mitigation measures county is committing to
lessen the impacts.
ii. Palomar Airport Runway Extension: Methane Gas Emissions. County's
PMP and its consultant say that to extend the runway, very large
construction equipment will operate over the runway east end Unit 3, 19-
acre, closed landfill. The Palomar Unit 3 plastic methane collection
piping lies 4 to 7 feet below the Unit 3 surface. At a county workshop,
the county consultant stated that the collection system would have to be
removed to avoid destruction by the many heavy construction units
working on site. Accordingly, during the entire runway extension
construction time, landfill methane gas will likely vent into the air at
increased rates, especially has hundreds of deep holes are drilled
through the landfill. County fails to discuss how much venting, the
consequences, or what mitigation measures county will take to
compensate for the venting.
iii. San Diego Air Basin Air Quality Ozone and Particulate Nonattainment
Area. As Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan notes, Carlsbad (as part of the
SD air basin), is a nonattainment area under state law for ozone and
particulate matter. Accordingly, by definition, all airport air quality
emissions contributing to ozone and particulates have a significant
impact.
b. BR 20. Explain in the PMP how the county PMP projects comply with
Carlsbad Air Quality 4-P.52, 4-P.55, and 4-P.56 General Plan Policies.
10. Failure 10: County's PMP Projects Violate Carlsbad General Plan Water Quality
Policies. ·
a. Violation of Carlsbad Water Quality Policy 4-P.57 and 4-P.58: Meeting RWQCB .
Standards. This policy requires projects to meet regulatory requirements
including RWQCB standards.
i. Present Long Term Violations. Policy 4-P.57 requires county to work
with the RWQCB to solve airport-created problems. The county does
not meet RWQCB standards presently, even before implementing the
201-2038 Projects. As RWQCB advised county in 2016 and 2017 county
continuously reports Palomar landfill contaminant levels exceeding the
RWQCB 96-13 Order objectives. Moreover, the exceedances are quite
large. In the range of 200% to 1400% in excess of the RWQCB
32
objectives. County has consistently failed and refused to provide
RWQCB a plan to meet the objectives.
b. PMP Project RWQCB Violations. Policy 4-P.58 requires county. developments to
incorporate structural and non-structural best management practic_es (BMPs) to
mitigate increase in pollution loads. Drilling hundreds of holes, each 15 to 40 feet
deep, through the Palomar Unit 3 landfill to place pilings to support a runway
extension will create thousands of feet of migration pathways to allow garbage
juice,.... quite likely converted to hazardous materials by the 6-month Unit 3
underground fire -to the ground and ground waters. County's 2018 -2038
PMP identifies no best management practices to handle the problem county
would create by the runway extension, especially since county built the Unit 3
landfill without the now standard 3-foot clay bottom liner.
c. BR 21. Explain how the county PMP projects comply with Carlsbad General
Plan Water Quality Policy 4-P.57 and 4-P.58.
11. Failure 11: County's PMP Projects Violate Carlsbad General Plan Noise Policies.
a. Violation of Carlsbad Noise Policy 5-P.2: Required Noise Analysis. This policy
"require(s) a noise analysis be conducted for all discretionary development
proposals ... located where projected noise exposure would be other than
"normally acceptable."
i. County 2018-2038 PMP Deficiencies.
1. 1100 Mobile Homes on Palomar Runway Extension Approach.
The city of San Marcos adjoins Carlsbad on the east. As San
Marcos Mayor Jim Desmond noted in his comments, about 1100
mobile homes lie within a few miles of the approach to Palomar
Airport runway. Notably, mobile homes commonly have far less
noise resistance because building standards may not apply to
them.
2. County's 2018-2038 General Plan and GP EIR have presented no
noise analysis to show the impact of extending the Palomar runway
to the east. By project design, such extension will bring landing
aircraft over the mobile homes sooner and lower. County does
not explain the impact Moreover, the California court has held
in Berkeley Jets Over the Bay that a proper noise analysis must
discuss how Single Noise Events (SNEL) impact the community.
County's PMP does not do this.
b. Violation of Carlsbad Noise Policy S-P.14: Fly Friendly Program and Policy S-
P.JS: Regulation of Noise. This policy states Carlsbad and county will inform
33
Palomar Airport policies of measures they may voluntarily take to reduce
airport noise. ·
i. Fly Friendly Program Violations. Carlsbad and Vista residents report
that pilots frequently violate the "Fly Friendly" program by flying after
10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. Usually, the violations occur by corporate jets
willing to accommodate their clients schedule rather than community
noise concerns.
ii. Airport Noise Capacity Act of 1990. County has previously said that it
may not impose mandatory limitations on aircraft because the Airport
Noise Capacity Act (ANCA) allows limitations only when limitations
existed before. As an ANCA observation, relevant to discussion below,
ANCA refers both to airport noise limitations and to access limitations
in place before 1990.
iii. County Pre-1990 Palomar Noise Limitations. County imposed various
Palomar Airport noise limitations long before 1990.24
iv. · Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 Condition 11 Palomar Access
Restriction to Aircraft/or "Basic Transport General Aviation." Carlsbad
Palomar access limits. date to 1979, recognizing that overall General
Aviation aircraft create less offensive noise than other aircraft.
v. Future ANCA Allowed Restrictions. Based on the foregoing information,
county PMP noise discussions need to discuss the feasibility of imposing
mandatory restrictions on aircraft using Palomar. No doubt the FAA
24 For instance, one county Board of Supervisor limitation provided as follows:
County's Tuesday, March 13, 1979 "RESOLUTION REVISING RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR COUNTY AIRPORTS" STATED:
WHEREAS, this Board has determined that training flights at County airports by aircraft types
that exceed acceptable noise levels should be prohibited; and
WHEREAS, there is presented to this Board a letter from the Director of Transportation
transmitting and recommending approval and adoption ofrevised rules and regulations for all
County airports; and
WHEREAS, Part IV, Noise Abatement has been added to said revised rules and regulations to
prohibit aircraft with FAA measured or estimated sideline noise levels exceeding an Effective
Perceived Noise Level (EPNdb) of90 db from conducing training flights at Gillespie Field,
Palomar Airport, Ramona Airport, and Borrego Valley airports and said rules have been
generally updated: NOW THEREFORE .
IT IS REVOLVED AND ORDERED that said revised rules and regulations for all County
airports be and they are hereby approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that said revised rules and regulations.
supersede and replace any and all preexisting rules and regulations for County airports.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, this 13th
day of March, 1979 by the following vote: Supervisors Hamilton, Hedgecock an Eckert [Moore and Bates absent]
34
may have a say, but that say does not excuse county from discussing
possible noise mitigation measures.
c. Violation of Carlsbad Noise Policy 5-P.15: Controlling Noise as Allowed by FAA.
In 2006 -after county participated with the FAA in a "Part 150 Noise Study,"
county agreed to implement various noise restriction measures at Palomar. 25
County's 2018 -2038 PMP provides no analysis of these noise restriction
measures and the county's compliance with them. The Palomar 2006 Part 150
Noise Study lists operational measures considered in Table 11-1. Moreover, the
Table indicates 4 measures [OM-1 re: traffic pattern altitudes, OM-5 re jet
standard instrument departure, OM-9 re helicopter altitudes, and OM-12 re
maximum aircraft weight of 60,000 pounds], which the FAA either took no
action on or disapproved because county failed to provide sufficient data.
County's 2018 -2038 PMP provides no information as to these items. County
may not claim it has fully explored and explained Palomar noise assessment and
mitigation measures when it does not even provide evidence that it is complying
with its existing FAA Part 150 noise measures.
d. BR 22. Explain in the PMP how county has made its best efforts to comply with
Carlsbad Noise Policy 5-P.2: Required Noise Analysis and Carlsbad Noise
Policy 5-P.14: Fly Friendly Program and Carlsbad Noise Policy 5-P.15:
Controlling Noise as Allowed by FAA.
End of Bender Part A
Comments on County Compliance with
California, Carlsbad, and County Planning Requirements
2019 RB Comments CCC june 11 Agenda 18 DIII Airport final
25 The FAA recognized that local airport sponsor's have the discretion "to d~elop or not d~elop airport facilities
· to serve larger aircraft and to make known to pilots the physical limitations of the airfield " See P. 11-21 and §
11.2.12, Vol. 1 of the McClellan-Palomar Airport FAR PART 150 STUDY UP ATE, Noise Compatibility Program
Version 6 prepared by URS and approved by the FAA on December 5, 2006.
35
City of Carlsbad History of Actions Concerning McClellan Palomar Airport
Documents can be provided upon request. Kris Wright
1959-establishment of McClellan Palomar Airport (relocated from Del Mar)
June 11, 2019
1978-The airport was annexed into the City and at that time the County asked the City for city services to include "fire suppression".
1979-the County_asked Carlsbad to issue a Conditional Use permit (CUP172) to define development conditions.
August 12. 1980-the City Council adopted ordinance 21.53.015 signed by Mayor Ron Packard after a citizen petition was presented
in July 1980 when there was a threat by the County to establish two runways. The initiative established that "voter authorization
required for airport expansion."
Sept. 24. 1980: the CUP 172 was passed by the Planning Commission (6-0-1) signed by the Planning Commission Chair Edwin Schick
Jr, which states in part that "Condition 11. "the existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall
not change unless an amendment to this CUP is approved by the Planning Commission."
March 6.1984: Resolution 7530 was passed and signed by Mayor Mary Casler (5-0) stating that Palomar Airport is designated as a
General Aviation facility and that ordinance #9558 requires a vote of the people before any zone change, general plan amendment
or other legislative enactment necessary for the expansion of the airport. It also states that the "City General Plan is predicated
upon the continued operation of the airport as it is currently designated."
April 3, 1984: Resolution 7558 was passed and signed by Mayor Mary Casler (5-0) requesting a Joint Powers Agreement with other
affected cities to formally define and limit the level of operations and nature of airport facilities through a binding agreement
enforceable by all parties stating in part "Whereas there is substantial concern among the citizens of this city concerning the
possible expansion of Palomar Airport by an increase in operations or improvement...which would thereby lead to an increase in
airport noise and greater safety risks to the detriment of the citizenry ... " Including "provisions preventing an expansion of airport
facilities such as the addition of a second runway, extension of the existing runway, upgrading of airport facilities ... in order to obtain
a Certificate of Operation from the FAA." Also included provisions for a maximum SNEL in any residential area of 78 dba.
October 30, 1984: The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors signed a document (labeled Document #10, Board order #6) which states
"the Board of Supervisors requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report on Supervisor Ekert's recommendation relating to a
proposed Joint Powers Agreement with the Cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista limiting growth of McClellan
Palomar Airport for Board consideration with an analysis of the proposal." The proposal was granted a 30 day extension. Vote (5-0)
Dec. 4, 1984: Agenda Item Comment: In response to your (the BOS) request, the Chief Administrative Officer has written to the City
Managers of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista and Oceanside have been contacted and that the County requests "more information
pertaining to their cities concerns and desires relative to McClellan Palomar Airport. This information has not been received."
Dec. 18, 1984: A document was established for a Joint Powers Agreement and presented to the County and Supervisor Ekert which
included the County of San Diego, and Cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos and Vista. I have an unsigned document that states
in part "the County agrees it 1. Will not apply for a full airport operating certificate without the unanimous consent of the Cities, 2.
Will not construct a second runway at McClellan Palomar Airport, and 3. Will NOT EXTEND THE RUNWAY at McClellan Palomar
Airport."
1990's: without first asking Carlsbad to modify CUP172 conditions 8&11, the County asked the FAA to reclassify Palomar Airport as
airport regularly handling commercial aircraft. This essentially reclassified the General Aviation designation to a FAA Part 139
Commercial Airport without approval from the Planning Commission and against CUP172.
Sept. 16.1997: The County approved the Airport Master Plan and failed to present this to the Council for review despite the County's
initial promises to do so.
Nov. 3, 2004: Planning Commission passed resolution 1698 (6-0) which allowed zoning changes to occur from L-C (limited control) to
M (Industrial) of the existing Palomar Airport facility.
Oct. 10. 2018: The County passed the new Palomar Airport Master Plan with a flawed pEIR specifically not completely addressing the
Green House gas issue thus initiating a lawsuit by the City of Carlsbad.
March 29. 2019: The City of Carlsbad settles their lawsuit with the County.
-2-
From the 2018 McClelllan_Palomar Master Plan
1. Pg. 9 of 21 Staff Report
·1 he County can elect to keep Palomar Airport at a B-11 classificafion hecause the FAA recognizes
there can be unique situations that affect an airport's classification. While Palomar Airport is
currently classified by the FAA as a B-II airport, Palomar Airport's runway is 150 feet wide which
is the same width a FAA 's design standard for 0-III runways. he v. ider rum, a): a , Palomar
Airport is an important existing enhanced feature above a regular B-11 airport standard that allows
aircraft faster and larger than B-11 airplanes to safe!) use Palomar airport. These larger m1d faster
airplanes are already safely usingthe airport and can continue to safely use the airport in the future .
Options (Staff Report):
7. Provide direction on the classification of the Palomar Airport final Master Plan Update alternative
and associated options by selecting one of the following alternatives and any available options:
7a. l 0-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative, with a runway extension of 370 feet; or,
Option #7a.2: Allows a runway extension up to 800 feet
8-11 Enhanced Alternative, with no runway extension or
pt,on #7b.2: With a runway extension up to 200 feet; and/or
Option #7b.3: With a runway extension up to 900 feet; and/or
Option #7b.4: Directs staff to return to the Board for further consideration of the
O-ur Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
B-ll E11/ra11ced Altemative a11d Optio11s (Recomme11datio11 #7b.l)
The 8-11 Enhanced Alternative (B-11 Alternative) was developed to meet FAA design standards
while enhancing safety for existing and future airplane operations from larger and faster C-lll and
D-lfl airplanes. Remaining at a 8-11 classification is less costly compared to the D-111 Alternative
and the current estimated construction cost for the 8-11 Alternative, without any runway extension,
is $26.8 million; of which approximately $24.2 million could be funded by FAA and the remaining
$2.6 million could be funded by the County. The project would be phased in over several years
and is anticipated to be completed wiLhin seven years, dependent on available funding. The airport
changes and options include:
I) EMAS: The 8-11 Alternative includes the construction of an EMA at the west end of the
runway. This EMAS enhances airport safety by providing a means to quickly stop an
airplane that may overrun the end of the runway. This is an advantage on the west end due
to a slope at the end of the runway.
Recommendations from the Palomar Master Plan include the 8-11 #7b.1 and Council can choose NO OPTIONS which
would prevent the extension/expansion of the runway and still have a safe airport. This choice has been the public's
choice by citizens and former Carlsbad City Councils as stated in the history presented here.
Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager
June 11, 2019
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update
City Council Direction/Action
March 27 Schedule discussion of McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
May 7 1. Schedule City Council interpretation of CUP 172 and
CMC 21.53.015
2. Schedule discussion of placing advisory vote regarding Palomar
Airport Master Plan and EIR on March 2020 Primary ballot
3. Oppose county selection of Palomar Airport Master Plan D-III
Alternative.
18. Discussion of County of San Diego’s
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update
& Consideration of City Council Position
Recommended Action
1.Discuss McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
2.Rescind May 7, 2019, City Council decision to oppose San
Diego County’s selection of the D-III Alternative
3.Consider taking a position on San Diego County’s
preferred D-III Alternative & 800 foot runway extension
Airport Master Plan Update
Framework to guide future airport development over a 20-year
planning period to enhance safety and operational efficiency:
•Existing facilities
•Forecasts of future
operations
•Aviation demand
•Alternatives for future
facility development
•Costs
•Environmental impacts
Airport Master Plan Update
Exhibit 2.1 Existing Airtield Facilities
-.. -p,_., Line
---RutM"ay Safety Area
Inventory of Exi.sting Conditions
Airport Master Plan Update
Design Features
-Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS)
-Runway Extension
-Runway & Taxiway Shift
-Runway Protection Zones
Airport Master Plan Update
Major concerns identified through county stakeholder outreach:
•Noise
•City of Carlsbad –CUP 172 & CMC 21.53.015
•Inactive Landfill
•Traffic
Airport Master Plan Update
Aviation Forecasts
-Baseline (2016):
-Scenario 1. Existing Terminal:
-Scenario 2. SANDAG Regional
Aviation Strategic Plan (2011):
-Historical Peak (1999/2000):
Takeoffs & Landings
192,860
195,000
208,000
292,000
Airport Master Plan Update
FAA Airport Classification
-Basis: characteristics of airplanes that will use airport
-Considered in airport design
-A, B, C, D, E –approach speed
-I, II, III, IV, V, VI –wingspan and tail height
Airport Master Plan Update
FAA Airport Classification
-Currently: B-II classification (w/ enhanced features)
- B-II –mid-sized business jets
- C-II –commercial passenger jets
- C-III/D-III corporate business jets
-Currently >500 D-III takeoffs and landings
UcClelwt~.alomillr Airport Airport Milster Plan Updilte-
Exhibit 5.2 Airfield Alternative 1 -B-11 Facility
EXISTING PAVEMENT I RUNWAY EXTENSION
™ PROPOSED EMAS
-----AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE ---•--RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA 1~ GIW'HIC SCAl( ii _,,_,_,_ RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE ~ -----RUNWAY SAFETY AREA G .. nm
Prepared by: Kimley-Hom, 2017
Alternatives Analysis
Airport Master Plan Update
Exhibit 5.6 Airfield Alternative 5-ARC 0-111 Modified Standards Compliance
NEW PAVEMENT I .. 1 REMOVED PAVEMENT
RUNWAY EXTENSION (800' TOTAL)
PROPOSED EMAS
-----AIRPORT PA.OPERTY L1NE __ ,,,. __ RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
TAXIWAY 08JECT FREE Af<EA 011.Al'HIC SCALE -· - - -
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE l ~ 1 -----RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 0'<11 ,ta)
Pre-pared by: Kimley-Hom, 2017
Altem.atives Analysis
Airport Master Plan Update
-County staff and PAAC recommended B-II Alternative
with options to:
•Extend Runway up to 900 feet, and
•Return to the Board with D-III Land Use Solutions
-County BOS selected D-III Alternative with option to:
•Extend Runway up to 800 feet
Recommended Action
1.Discuss McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
2.Rescind May 7, 2019, City Council decision to oppose San
Diego County’s selection of the D-III Alternative
3.Consider taking a position on San Diego County’s
preferred D-III Alternative & 800 foot runway extension
19. City Council Interpretation of
Conditional Use Permit 172
& CMC 21.53.015
Recommended Action
That the City Council consider articulating its interpretation of:
A. CUP 172 –to operate the existing Palomar Airport Facility,
and
B. CMC Section 21.53.015 –Voter Authorization Required for
Airport Expansion
CUP 172
-CUP 172 –Approved 1980 (Planning Commission)
-To operate existing Palomar Airport Facility
-@ NW Corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real
-Findings & Conditions of Approval
-Table 1: Permitted uses, facilities, & commercial activities
CUP 172
-CUP 172-B –Approved 2004 (Planning Commission)
-To allow use of three existing parcels for airport parking
areas
-@ North side of Owens Ave, between Camino Vida Roble
and Yarrow Drive
-Findings & Conditions of Approval
CMC Section 21.53.015
•(a)The city council shall not approve any zone change, general plan
amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize expansion of any airport in the city nor shall the city
commence any action or spend any funds preparatory to or in
anticipation of such approvals without having been first authorized to
do so by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at
an election for such purposes.
CMC Section 21.53.015
•(b)This section was proposed by initiative petition and
adopted by the vote of the city council without submission to
the voters and it shall not be repealed or amended except by a
vote of the people. (Ord. 9804 §5, 1986; Ord. 9558 §1, 1980).
Is a zone change, general plan amendment
or other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize it?
No vote
required
yes no
Is there an
expansion?
No. No vote required
Yes. Vote required
CMC Section 21.53.015
yes
Is a zone change, general plan amendment
or other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize it?
no
No vote
required
Recommended Action
That the City Council consider articulating its interpretation of:
A. CUP 172 –to operate the existing Palomar Airport Facility,
and
B. CMC Section 21.53.015 –Voter Authorization Required for
Airport Expansion
20. March 2020 Primary Election Ballot:
Advisory Question on
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Update and FEIR
Recommended Action
1.Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and
Final Environmental Impact Report on the March 2020
primary election ballot, and provide direction to staff.
March 3, 2020 Primary Election
-Advisory question –non-binding
-Specify what the public will be asked to weigh in on
-Clarify City Council intent and direct staff to return with
a recommended approach & draft ballot language
March 3, 2020 Primary Election
-Estimated Cost: $45,000 to $60,000
-Dec. 6 –deadline to adopt resolution calling election
-Dec. 12 –Argument deadline
-Dec. 13 –Impartial analysis deadline
-Dec 17 –Rebuttal deadline
Recommended Action
1.Discuss placing an advisory question regarding the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and
Final Environmental Impact Report on the March 2020
primary election ballot, and provide direction to staff.