HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-17; City Council; ; Opposition to the D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative and Support for the B-II Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Design ClassificatioCA Review (}.JC
€) S~~fi R~port
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
September 17, 2019
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager
jason .haber@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2958
Opposition to the D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative and
Support for the B-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport
Master Plan Design Classification.
Recommended Action
Consider adoption of the following resolutions:
1. Opposing the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design classification,
allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet; and
2. Supporting the B-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design
classification, with no runway extension.
Executive Summary
This report presents two resolutions for City Council consideration, as directed by the City Council
at the June 11, 2019, City Council meeting. The first is a resolution in opposition to the San Diego
County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design classification, allowing a runway extension up to
800 feet (Exhibit 1). The second resolution is in support of the B-11 Enhanced Alternative
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension (Exhibit
2).
Discussion
On Oct. 10, 2018, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan Update and selected the D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative,
allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet, as their preferred Master Plan design classification.
The October 10, 2018 County Board Letter (Exhibit 3) and Minute Order No. 1 (Exhibit 4) 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 McClellan-Palomar Airport.
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 1 of 26
In addition, the October 10, 2018 Board Letter with attachments can be found at:
https://bosagenda.sdcounty.ca.gov/agendadocs/mat erials.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
On March 27, 2019, the City Council directed staff to place an item on a future agenda to allow
a public conversation specific to the County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master
Plan Update. That item was presented to the City Council on June 11, 2019, at which time the
City Council directed staff to return once again with resolutions opposing the D-111 Modified
Standards Compliance Alternative and supporting the B-11 Enhanced Alternative, as presented.
Fiscal Analysis
This item has no fiscal impact.
Next Steps
None.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Taking positions 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. City Council Resolution -Oppose D-111 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
2. City Council Resolution -Support B-11 Enhanced Alternative
3. October 10, 2018, County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Board Letter regarding
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (without attachments)
4. October 10, 2018, County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Minute Order No. 1
regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 2 of 26
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-178
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
PREFERRED D-I11 MODIFIED STANDARDS COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE
FUTURE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT DESIGN CLASSIFICATION,
ALLOWING A RUNWAY EXTENSION UP TO 800 FEET
WHEREAS, airport master plans provide a framework to guide future airport development
over a 20-year planning period; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the
Mclellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, on that date, the County Board of Supervisors selected the D-11I Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative as their preferred future McClellan-Palomar Airport design classification, with
a runway extension up to 800 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee recommended that the County Board of
Supervisors support County staff's recommendation to approve the Master Plan Update, with a B-11
Enhanced Alternative including options to allow a runway extension of up to 900-feet over an existing
inactive landfill; and
WHEREAS, Palomar Airport is currently classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as a
B-11 airport; and
WHEREAS, McClellan-Palomar airport is currently used by B-11 mid-sized business jets and
larger C-11I and D-I11 corporate business jets and C-11 commercial passenger jets; and
WHEREAS, both the D-11I and B-11 alternatives can accommodate the aviation forecasts in the
proposed Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the D-11I improvements, four Modifications of Standards will need
to be presented to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval; and
WHEREAS, the current estimated construction cost for the D-11I Alternative with an 800-foot
runway extension is approximately $132.2 million, while the current estimated construction cost for
the B-11 Enhanced Alternative with no runway extension is approximately $26.8 million; and
WHEREAS, the County can elect to keep Palomar Airport at a B-11 classification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 3 of 26
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City of Carlsbad opposes the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' preferred
D-I11 Modified Standards Compliance Alternative Mclellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
design classification, allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet.
3. That a certified copy of this Resolution will be sent to the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors and appropriate State and Federal representatives.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 17th day of September 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton.
NAYS: Hall.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
~ Hedor Go/Tit z., Dt,u!:}
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk l ,'t.1i
(SEAL) }J C e,it.
1111111111111,,,,,,, ~~f:,f CAJ:ft//¾ ~ " .. ···~---."'~ :::~-~ •y,~
¥-/~\,,% :§(Ji ~P]', (..,j.f C § \\~~!J ;:::,: ·· .•... 'lltt' ...•• •· .;:, ~"····' .. •·~~ ~ "'◄1 .......... J,,''r ~ -q,,,,,,IFOf'~,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,11111111111~
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 4 of 26
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
I, Hector Gomez Deputy City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy
with the original
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-178
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
OPPOSING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PREFERRED D-111
MODIFIED STANDARDS COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE FUTURE MCCLELLAN-
PALOMAR AIRPORT DESIGN CLASSIFICATION, ALLOWING A RUNWAY
EXTENSION UP TO 800 FEET
with the original now on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Carlsbad; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom
and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said City of Carlsbad, this 18th day of
September 2019.
HECTOR GOMEZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
,,1111111111111,,,,, ~,,,'',e.. CA b~1,,,,,/. ~ oii-'T. ~ ,S'~ ...•.• ft~ ~ . ..u~~ ~I,,..,. / ···v-i ~
J .... !m\"JI'% ~0{~'-1 ?:.A)C@
%\.~~/ff ~ ••• ...... n,••H ••• ;::; ¾ ~/·····: ..... ·:i,t-,1' '//1,,/ .. IFO~~,,,,,~ 111111,1111111111111 September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 5 of 26
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-179
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE B-11 ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE FUTURE
MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT DESIGN CLASSIFICATION, WITH NO
RUNWAY EXTENSION
WHEREAS, airport master plans provide a framework to guide future airport development
over a 20-year planning period; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, on that date, the County Board of Supervisors selected the D-111 Modified Standards
Compliance Alternative as their preferred future McClellan-Palomar Airport design classification, with
a runway extension up to 800 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee recommended that the County Board of
Supervisors support County staff's recommendation to approve the Master Plan Update, with a B-11
Enhanced Alternative including options to allow a runway extension of up to 900-feet over an existing
inactive landfill; and
WHEREAS, Palomar Airport is currently classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as a
B-11 airport; and
WHEREAS, McClellan-Palomar airport is currently used by B-11 mid-sized business jets and
larger C-111 and D-111 corporate business jets and C-11 commercial passenger jets; and
WHEREAS, the B-11 Enhanced Alternative can accommodate the aviation forecasts in the
proposed Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the B-11 Enhanced Alternative includes the construction of an Engineered Materials
Arresting System at the west end of the runway to enhance airport safety; and
WHEREAS, the B-11 Enhanced Alternative does not necessitate shifting the runway; and
WHEREAS, the B-11 Enhanced Alternative presents no new constraints to properties located in
Runway Protection Zones; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the D-111 improvements, four Modifications of Standards will need
to be presented to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval; and
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 6 of 26
WHEREAS, the current estimated construction cost for the B-11 Alternative with no runway
extension is approximately $26.8 million, while the current estimated construction cost for the D-111
Alternative with an 800-foot runway extension is approximately $132.2 million; and
WHEREAS, the County can elect to keep Palomar Airport at a B-11 classification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City of Carlsbad supports the B-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension.
3. That a certified copy of this Resolution will be sent to the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors and appropriate State and Federal representatives.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 17th day of September 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton.
NAYS: Hall, Blackburn.
ABSENT: None.
~ /Jed« btimn I Dtp,t-lj .(,r BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk CtfJ
(SEAL) J ., C }tlu
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 7 of 26
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
I, Hector Gomez Deputy City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy
with the original
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-179
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
SUPPORTING THE 8-11 ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE FUTURE MCCLELLAN-
PALOMAR AIRPORT DESIGN CLASSIFICATION, WITH NO RUNWAY EXTENSION
with the original now on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Carlsbad; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom
and of the whole thereof.
Witness my hand and the seal of said City of Carlsbad, this 18th day of
September 2019.
HECTOR GOMEZ
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 8 of 26
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
LAND USE AGENDA ITEM
DATE: October 10, 2018
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT
Exhibit 3
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
GREG COX
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 Rep01i (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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 9 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR 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-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 IMP ACT
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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 10 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRJCT: 5)
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.
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 oflnterstate 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 11 of 26
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-1 72 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. Comm enters 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 12 of 26
· 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:
I Departing Commercial I 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 13 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRJCT: 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, Ill, 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-11 mid-sized
business jets and larger C-III and D-111 corporate business jets and C-11 commercial passenger jets.
While airplanes larger than B-11 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-111 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 Airpmi. During coordination with the FAA
it was determined that combining the CID classifications was not acceptable to the FAA; therefore,
only the D-111 alternative is being presented for the Board's consideration.
The County can elect to keep Palomar Airport at a B-11 classification because the FAA recognizes
there can be unique situations that affect an airport's classification. Whil.e 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-11 airport standard that allows
aircraft faster and larger than B-11 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 14 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR 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 defined 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.J)
The D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative (D-III Altern.ative) 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 15 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR 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-
III-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 3 70 feet to align with the new shifted runway and is anticipated to be completed within
13 to 20 years, dependent on available fw1ding.
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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 16 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
4) RPZ: A 370-foot extension is necessary as part of this alternative to minimize the effects
of new RP Zs 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-III improvements, four Modifications of Standards will need to be
presented to the FAA for approval.
• The D-111 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 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 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-III-sized airplane to travel about 300 miles farther to
Legistar vl.O 9
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 17 of 26
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 $37.5 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 #76.1. 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 cmTent 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 RP Zs 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 RPZs 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-Il• can be on either the runway or taxiway. The FAA has
Legistar vl.O 10
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 18 of 26
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 recommendation 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 RPZs 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 19 of 26
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 fo r 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 EI 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 20 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALO MAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
stonnwater 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
Rep01i (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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 21 of 26
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-II Enhanced Alternative and the D-III 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~l r) ·
t:)n,i\a_,k ~'1\. 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 22 of 26
SUBJECT: MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(DISTRICT: 5)
AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET
REQUIRES FOUR VOTES: □ Yes ~ No
WRITTEN DISCLOSURE PER COUNTY CHARTER SECTION 1000.1 REQUIRED
D Yes ~ 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 Airpo1i 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):
NIA
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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 23 of 26
Exhibit 4
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2018
MINUTE ORDER NO. 1
SUBJECT: 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)
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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 24 of 26
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.l 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 IMP ACT
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 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, 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
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 25 of 26
3. Adopted the Statement of Location and Custodian of Record.
4. Adopted the decision and explanation regarding recirculation of the draft PEIR.
5. Adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with Section
15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines
6. Approved the McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan Update.
7. Provided direction on the classification of the Palomar Airport final Master Plan Update alternative
and associated options, selecting D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative with Option
#7a.2: allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet in addition to the improvements included on
Option #7 a. l; and, directed the Chief Administrative Officer to return to the Board to amend the
make-up of the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee to allow the City of Carlsbad to submit one
suggested committee member for the Board of Supervisor's consideration, and continue to work
with the City of Carlsbad on noise concerns.
A YES: Cox, Jacob, Roberts, Horn
RECUSED: Gaspar
State of California)
County of San Diego) §
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Original entered in the Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors.
DAVID HALL
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Signed
by Marv ice Mazyck, Chief Deputy
OCTOBER 10, 2018 3
September 17, 2019 Item #5 Page 26 of 26
HAND DELIVERED
July 30, 2018
Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
Anne Bertussi
Carlsbad, CA 92008
All Receive -Agenda Item fl
For the Information of the:
C~COU~L /
ACM CA CC v ✓
Date1-30 CM V COO_
Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172
(CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
Dear Ms. Engleson:
Please distribute copies of the attached letter dated July 30, 2018, and its related attachment, to
the city council members, the city planning commission members, and the city staff listed on the
first page of the letter, as soon as possible. Thank you very much for the assistance.
Sincerely,
(j;,vc,-ni~,.w]~ ~ f. B~
Giovanni Be~ussi, Jr. Anne T. Bertussi
Enclosure (letter dated July 30, 2018 w/attacbment)
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
HAND DELIVERED
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members
Anne Bertussi
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Planning Commission Members
Mr. Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Mr. Don Neu, City Planner
c!o Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport :Facility Conditional Use Permit 172
(CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have recently reviewed many of the City of Carlsbad's online documents relating to the
Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP-172), related Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1699, and related City staff and public agency reports and correspondence. We
have also recently reviewed the McClellan Palomar Airport's Draft Environmental r mpact
Report and related appendices (EIR) prepared in connection \vith its Master Plan Update (MPU).
We are very concerned the airport is proposing significant alterations to its facilities that are
outside the scope of its CUP-172 without going through the City's CUP amendment process.
The airport currently does not intend apply for an amendment to its existing conditional use
permit with the City of Carlsbad as stated in its draft EIR. Does the City agree with this?
The aimort MPU's proposed projects and modifications do not appear to be in compliance with
-R:uP-172, Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A" appears to specifically control and limit airport
development activities to those shovm on the exhibit (see Exhibit "A'', airport facility
~ap/drav,ring,'an~UP~l 72 Condition No. 1). In addition;1cUP-172 Table 1 appears to detail
permitted uses only. The airport's proposed J:vIPU projects and modifications arc extensive, and
they will completely alter the airpo1i's existing facilities, operations, flight paths, noise contours,
etc.
The City's "Initial Study Summary" dated August 25. 1980 (prepared by the City's planning
department to study CUP-172) is also importa11t to consider.
·?---~t:, ~QS;_;.(;_,_'L,Yl ;Ju, I lY9'1
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members et al
Page 2 of3
This document discusses several matters, and states "the Conditional Use Pem1it is intended to
serve on an interim basis until various land use and noise abatement studies arc complete. No
substantial development or expansion of the airport will be permitted until those studies are
complete and the existing CUP is revised." The existing CUP has never been revised, and the
preceding discussion also appears to relate directly to CUP-172 Condition No. 7. Did the City
Planning Director subsequently comply with the directive of Condition No. 7'? What did
the City Planning Commission subsequently determine regarding these matters?
A City planning document relating to CUP-172, dated Julv 11, 1996 (from the City's Planning
Director to the City Manager) also states in part, "Ai11101i staff would like to bring the I\11astcr
Plan forward for Plam1ing Commission and City Council review as an information item. Staff
has reviewed the draft Plan and determined that the Master Plan is substantially different
from the Airport plans previously approved under CUP 172 (approved by Planning
Commission September 24, 1980). Therefore, staff proposes to advise the Airport staff that
they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan. Airport staff have
expressed concern regarding an update of their CUP. Their problem with the CUP amendment is
the potential for public objections to the proposed Master Plan which could jeopardize ne\v
airport terminal improvements." We believe County airport personnel are once again attempting
to improperly eliminate public objections to 1.heir new Master Plan projects bv failing to
recognize the need for a CUP an1enchnent. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
The developmenfprojects·proposed in the airport's new MPU are also "substantially different
from the Airpo1i plans previously approved under CUP ] 72". However, the County is asserting
it does not require a CUP amendment because, ''The City issued Conditional Use Permit -172 to
grant the County the right to make alterations to facilities that are necessary to the operation of the
airport. The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the CUP because it proposes changes to
facilities that are necessary to provide for the safe and efficient operation of the airport. Moreover.
the County is immune from City zoning ordinances under state law and there is broad federal
preemption of non-sponsor regulations of on-airport facility improvements; particularly, where
necessary.to meet FAA design criteria."
The preceding assertion is misleading because the proposed MPU projects are all discretionary,
and they not necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport as currently designed
and operated. Furthermore, this assertion does not appear to be suppmied by the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the California Public Utilities Code, or the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan. Accordingly, when is the City going to advise Airport staff they
must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan projects?
Finally, the airport's MPU projects will also significantly negatively impact thousands of
residents of the City of Carlsbad.
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members et al
Page 3 of 3
Please see the attached letter dated March 16, 2018, to the Environmental Planning Manager of
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airport Division (prepared previously
in connection with our review of the airport's draft MPU EIR), detailing many airport IvIPU EIR
deficiencies and inaccuracies city council members, city planning commission members, and city
staff may, or may not, already be aware of.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We look forward to receiving a response
to our inquiries.
Sincerely,
0•~rn:lJ~:J Aiw_, -f Be,4'
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr. 1 Anne T. Bertussi
Attachment (letter dated March 16, 2018)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699 -With Table 1 & Exhibit "A"
r
I
11
I ii 2:1
' 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10,
11
12
13
City
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1699
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CON-
DITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING
PALOMAR AIRPORT FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST COR.~ER OF PALOMAR AIR
PORT ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO -DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
CASE NO: CUP-172
WHEREAS, verified application has been filed with the
cf Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day of September,
: 1980, hold a duly noticed to consider said application on
14,
[ property described as:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
That portion of Palomar Airport lying within Lot "G" of
Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
, relating to CUP-172.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
i A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
25:
26
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CUP-172, based on the
following findings and subJect to the following conditions:
PC RESOL #1699
l.
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 i
17 :1
L
I 181
19
20
21
• •
Findings:
1)
2)
4)
That the requested use is compatible with existing uses or
to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is to be located.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the use.
That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping,
and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to
existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will
be provided and maintained.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate
to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.
Conditions
1)
2)
3)
4)
Approval is granted for CUP-172 as shown on Exhibit "A",
dated January 14, 1980 and Table l dated September 24,
1980, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning
Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
This project is approved upon the express condition that
building permits will not be issued for development of
the subject property unless the City Engineer determines
that sewer facilities are available at the time of appli-
cation for such sewer permits and will continue to be
available until time of occupancy.
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed
in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department
prior to installation of such signs.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. Loca-
tion of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning
De par tmen t.
22 · S) All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall
be architecturally integrated and shielded from view froJr.
adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the
Planning Department and Building Department. 23 i:
24. 6) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with
all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other appli-
cable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
,25·
26
27
28
PC RESOL #lf:>99
-2-
J.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
• • At the conclusion of the CPO Palomar Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and the San Diego County Airport Noise and Land
Use Compatibility study, the Planning Director shall bring
this application back to the Planning Commission for their
review. At that time, the Planning Commission has the
discretion to set the matter back to public hearing where
they may add, amend or delete any conditions relating to
the airport use and development standards.
The permitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited to those
as outlined in Table 1, dated September 24, 1980, and
incorporated herein by reference. Approval of any uses
not specifically listed in Table 1 and/or expansion of
the airport facility shall require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
Unless otherwise stated herein, all rules and regulations
of the M Zone shall apply.
This Conditional Use Permit is expressly conditioned
upon the approval of ZC-208 by the City Council.
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 Corn-
mission.
At the time of the issuance of any building permits for
new construction or alterations to existing structures, each
private individual lessee shall pay a public facility fee
pursuant to City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29,
1979, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
on the 24th day of September, 1980, by the following vote,
to wit:
J
C
AYES: Commissioner Schick, .Jose, Larson, Lee,ls, friestedt,
and Rombotis.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN: ~:one.
EDWIN S. SCHICK, JR.i Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING CO~SSION
~; RESO H699 -3-
• • TABLE 1
September 24, 1980
I. The .following uses an, [_)ermitted by this Conditional
Use Permit wilhout the need for additional discretion-
ary review:
a. Structures and Facilities
Airport sLructures and facilities that are necessary to
the operation of the airport and to the control of air
traffic in relation thereto, include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following:
ll) Taxiways and parking aprons, including lighting.
(2) Aircraft. hangars, tie-down areas and maintenance
buildings.
(3) Air traffic control towers and facilities.
~) Navigational aid equipment and structures.
(:,) Airport administration buildings, which may also
includa airport passenger terminal facilities.
(6) Airport passenger terminal buildings and airLels,
and facilities which may include as uses inci-
aental thereto, consumer service establishn~nts,
including automobile rentals, retail shops norm-
ally operated for the convenience of the users of
terminal facilities.
l7) Heliports.
(8) Aviation fuel farms.
(9) Automobile parking lots and structures.
(10) Buildings for housing operations and equipment
necessary to the maintenance, security and safety
of the ah:por.t.
b. Commercial nctivitics
Commercinl aviation acti vi tiec, as foll01·1s:
(1) Aviation flight and gi:-ouna schools, including
pilot and student equipment sales.
(2) Aircraft sales, including radio and navigational
equipment, parts, supplios and accessory equip-
ment.
(3)
(4}
(~)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
• • Aircraft hangar and tie-do~n rcnlals.
Aircraft leasing, rental and charter.
Airframe, engine, radio, navinational and acces-
sory equipment repair, maintei1ance and modifica-
tion.
Aircraft ground support equipment repair, main-
tenance and modification.
Aircraft cleaning services.
Aircraft painting.
l',viation fuc,l facilities.
Aircraft and engine m~chanic schools.
Airlines, scheduled and non-scheduled.
Air taxi and air ambulance services.
Air freight terminals and trans-shipment facilities.
Aerial crop dusting and spraying enterprises.
Acr.ial fin, fight.in,;.
Aerial photography and surveying.
Parachute rigging sa1es and service.
II. 'l'he following uses are allowed if the Planning Com-
mission determines that they are consistent with
~he airport facility:
a. Incidental ea ting and drinking establishments
b. Incidental commercial, professional office and/or
industrial uses not specifically mention in Sec-
tion I a and b provided that such uses arc permitted
in and arc consistent with the intent of the M ~~ne.
III. The following uses ai·c al1011cd if the Planning Director
· determines t.hey arc consistent with and rclatc,d to the
airport facility:
nil: j t
a. Signs -Identification, directional and safety
s.igns.
b. /I single-family dwelling occupied exclusively by a
c<Jr0takc1~ or supcrinlcndcnl: of such UG<1 ~::t.1H.l his
fnmily.
Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699 -(a.k.a. The Last Page of the
County's CUP-172 Application -See Lower Right Corner of Drawing)
l ,//
l"LOl PLAN
f-b/o.rno.,. A,,:oorl
C'1!''.•;l:•oa, Ca!dcr,l'l,'0
;:'-11rporls D1vis.1on
Depar/tnent of Transpi,r,1a,1kx:,
County of San :J1tHJO
·-·~1/t ~l
/J:' "H •11 ,r;f t
inr"Y;l', "''• .. i :} I
I ,~,--,--, -•
... ~Jiit.Jl~ J : "~111,
F1r~-t,,_J I «l
ooa.,o IJOS JO A/IJllO:J
UO//OlJOdSUOJJ. JO JV9UJ/Jod90
UO/S/A/0 SJJOdJ/t;'
0/UJOJIJO:J 'pOQS/JO:J
/JOdJ/tf JOWO/Ocl
Ntt7d 107d
I
1/
From: Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
To: gober2c@aol.com
Cc: Tammy.Cloud-McMinn@carlsbadca.gov, Clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Sent: 10/26/2018 4: 14: 10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport -Specific Inquiries Addressed
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bertussi -
Yes, you are correct, in that, the county has asserted that the approved airport master plan update
and the improvements contemplated within it are consistent with the existing CUP-172, and
therefore, do not trigger a need for a CUP amendment. The city's consulting attorneys, Kaplan
Kirsch Rockwell (KKR), have advised the city that the county's master plan update does not
appear to require a CUP amendment. In explaining their assessment, KKR referenced specific
language in the conditions and Table 1 of CUP-172, which provides flexibility benefiting the
county in determining what airport structures and facilities are permitted without the need for
additional discretionary review. While the City Council has not expressly stated a position on
whether the airport master plan update is consistent with CUP-172; upon receiving such advice
from KKR, the City Council did not direct staff or KKR to research the matter further, nor to
communicate to the county that a CUP amendment was required.
My response to your inquiry regarding Condition #7 of Resolution No. 1699 can't be more
definitive, in that, city staff is simply unable to find a record of the Planning Commission having
a follow-up discussion regarding the airport. The actions contemplated under Condition #7 may
have in fact occurred, or they may not have occurred; however, no city records have been located
regarding such actions, and no city staff from 1980 have been located to confirm what actually
happened.
Given the discussion provided under Item 1, above, the city has no plans to advise the county
that they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master plan projects at this time.
Thank you once again,
Jason Haber
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Carlsbad
From:
To: Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
Cc: Tammy.Cloud-McMinn@carlsbadca.gov, clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Sent: 10/26/2018 11 :56:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport -Specific Inquiries Not Addressed
Dear Mr. Haber,
Thank you for your response to our inquiry letter dated July 30, 2018. Unfortunately, your response is
overly broad, and our specific inquiries are not addressed in the information you reference in item 1 of
your response. Moreover, our inquiries are short, specific, and should be easy to respond to.
To restate our inquiries:
1) We are very concerned the airport is proposing significant alterations to its facilities that are
outside the scope of its CUP-172 without going through the City's CUP amendment process.
The airport currently does not intend apply for an amendment to its existing conditional use
permit with the City of Carlsbad as stated in its draft EIR. Does the City agree with this (please respond
with a simple "yes or no" answer, and provide a brief explanation why the City agrees, or does not
agree)?
2) Did the City Planning Director subsequently comply with the directive of Condition No. 7? · What did
the City Planning Commission subsequently determine regarding these matters?
Your response to this inquiry is, "City staff is unable to find a record of the Planning Commission having a
follow-up discussion regarding the airport, as described in Resolution 1699 Condition #7." This response
does not directly address our inquiries.
Based on your response, the direct response to part one of our question appears to be -the City
Planning Director apparently did not comply with the directive of Condition No. 7, correct?
Furthermore, the direct response to part 2 of our question appears to be -the City Planning
Commission made no subsequent determinations regarding any of the matters referenced in our
letter dated July 30, 2018 to the City, correct?
3) When is the City going to advise Airport staff they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed
Master Plan projects? Please tell us when, if ever, the City is going to do this formally to protect
the best interests of the residents of the City of Carlsbad. Please be specific.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
, Carlsbad 92008
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable Federal or State law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by a separate return email and delete and permanently destroy the original message and all copies
thereof immediately. Thank you.
From: Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
To: g
Cc: Tammy.Cloud-McMinn@carlsbadca.gov, Clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Sent 10/25/2018 4:32:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bertussi-
The following is in response to the inquiries posed in your letter of July 30, 2018, which was
addressed to the Carlsbad City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, City Planner, and
City Clerk:
1. Presentations made by consulting attorneys from the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell
(KKR) to the City Council on February 20, 2018, and at a community meeting on June
19, 2018, addressed the question of the airport master plan update' s triggering of an
amendment to CUP-172. You can review the Feb. 20, 2018, City Council staff report and
presentation video (under Item 3 -Part 1 of 2, beginning around 1 :28:20), as well as the
June 19, 2018, public meeting presentation and video to review the KKR analysis and
conclusions on that matter. (Please note that blue text above indicates an active link to the
referenced document or video.)
2. City staff is unable to find a record of the Planning Commission having a follow-up
discussion regarding the airport, as described in Resolution 1699 Condition #7.
Thank you for contacting the city to share your concerns and questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jason Haber
Assistant to the City Manager
760-434-2958 Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
Facebook , Twitter ; You Tube . Flickr Pinterest I Enews
From:
To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Sent: 9/26/2018 7:42:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Follow-Up -Formal Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility Submitted July, 30, 2018
September 26, 2018
Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
Anne Bertussi
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Follow-Up -Formal Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility ("Airport")
Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
Dear Ms. Engleson:
On July 30, 2018, we submitted a letter to the city council members, the city planning commission
members, and the city staff listed on the first page of the letter, requesting answers to our inquiries in the
letter. It has been almost two months, and we still have not received a response. We would appreciate a
prompt and complete response right away. We believe these are very important matters that may impact
our city. Would you please inform us when we will receive a response?
As the City may not be aware, on September 20, 2018, the County released a "redline" proposed final
version of its Master Plan Update (MPU-DR) at its Palomar Airport Advisory Committee meeting, without
issuing a corresponding Program Environmental Impact Report "Draft Redline" (PEIR-DR). Furthermore,
we noted the MPU-DR has been prepared as if the Airport's Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) has already been finalized.
Moreover, in the MPU-DR, the airport is still proposing significant alterations to its facilities that we believe
are outside the scope of its current CUP-172 with the City. We also believe the Airport is improperly
asserting it does not believe it needs to go through the City's CUP amendment process. We believe the
Airport's assertions are based on prior inaccurate research, and related communications, from a prior City
Attorney that are being misinterpreted by the County for its own benefit.
We believe the Airport will never apply for an amendment to its existing conditional use permit with the
City. It needs to be put on written notice which planned MPU projects will require an amendment.
Accordingly, we kindly request prompt answers to our inquiries to prevent future problems before they
happen. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable Federal or State law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error.
please notify us immediately by a separate return email, and delete and permanently destroy the original message and all copies
thereof immediately. Thank you.
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr.
HAND DELIVERED
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members
Anne Bcrtussi
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Planning Commission Members
Mr. Kevin Crawford, City Manager
Mr. Don Neu, City Planner
c/o Ms. Barbara Engleson, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Inquiries Regarding Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172
(CUP-172) and related Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have recently reviewed many of the City of Carlsbad's online documents relating to the
Palomar Airport Facility Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP-172), related Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1699, and related City staff and public agency reports and correspondence. We
have also recently reviewed the McClellan Palomar Airport's Draft Environmental Impact
Report and related appendices (EIR) prepared in connection with its Master Plan Update (MPU).
We are very concerned the airport is proposing significant alterations to its facilities that are
outside the scope of its CUP-172 without going through the City's CUP amendment process.
The airport currently does not intend apply for an amendment to its existing conditional use
permit with the City of Carlsbad as stated in its draft EIR. Does the City agree with this?
The airport MPU' s proposed projects and modifications do not appear to be in compliance with
CUP-172, Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A" appears to specifically control and limit airport
development activities to those shown on the exhibit (see Exhibit ''A", airport facility
map/drawing, and CUP-172 Condition No. 1 ). In addition, CUP-172 Table 1 appears to detail
permitted uses only. The airport's proposed MPU projects and modifications are extensive, and
they will completely alter the airport's existing facilities, operations, flight paths, noise contours,
etc.
The City's "Initial Study Summary" dated August 25, 1980 (prepared by the City's planning
department to study CUP-172) is also important to consider.
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members et al
Page 2 of 3
This document discusses several matters, and states '"the Conditional Use Permit is intended to
serve on an interim basis until various land use and noise abatement studies are complete. No
substantial development or expansion of the airport will be permitted until those studies are
complete and the existing CUP is revised." The existing CUP has never been revised, and the
preceding discussion also appears to relate directly to CUP-172 Condition No. 7. Did the City
Planning Director subsequently comply with the directive of Condition No. 7? What did
the City Planning Commission subsequently determine regarding these matters?
A City planning document relating to CUP-172, dated July 11, 1996 (from the City's Planning
Director to the City Manager) also states in part, "Airport staff would like to bring the Master
Plan forward for Planning Commission and City Council review as an information item. Staff
has reviewed the draft Plan and determined that the Master Plan is substantially different
from the Airport plans previously approved under CUP 172 (approved by Planning
Commission September 24, 1980). Therefore, staff proposes to advise the Airport staff that
they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan. Airport staff have
expressed concern regarding an update of their CUP. Their problem with the CUP amendment is
the potential for public objections to the proposed Master Plan which could jeopardize new
airport terminal improvements." We believe County airport personnel are once again attempting
to improperly eliminate public objections to their new Master Plan projects by failing to
recognize the need for a CUP amendment. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
The development projects proposed in the airport's new MPU are also "substantially different
from the Airport plans previously approved under CUP 172". However, the County is asserting
it does not require a CUP amendment because, "The City issued Conditional Use Permit -172 to
grant the County the right to make alterations to facilities that are necessary to the operation of the
airport. The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the CUP because it proposes changes to
facilities that are necessary to provide for the safe and efficient operation of the airport Moreover.
the County is immune from City zoning ordinances under state law and there is broad federal
preemption of non-sponsor regulations of on-airport facility improvements; particularly, where
necessary to meet FAA design criteria."
The preceding assertion is misleading because the proposed MPU projects are all discretionary,
and they not necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport as currently designed
and operated. Furthermore, this assertion does not appear to be supported by the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, the California Public Utilities Code, or the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan. Accordingly, when is the City going to advise Airport staff they
must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan projects?
Finally, the airport's MPU projects will also significantly negatively impact thousands of
residents of the City of Carlsbad.
July 30, 2018
Carlsbad City Council Members et al
Page 3 of 3
Please see the attached letter dated March 16, 2018, to the Environmental Planning Manager of
The County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Airport Division (prepared previously
in connection with our review of the airport's draft MPU EIR), detailing many airport MPU EIR
deficiencies and inaccuracies city council members, city planning commission members, and city
staff may, or may not, already be aware of.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We look forward to receiving a response
to our inquiries.
Sincerely,
Giovanni Bertussi, Jr. Anne T. Bertussi
Attachment (letter dated March 16, 2018)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CAALSBAD VH.U.GJ; t>.RIVE:
AONAt.0 A. SAU.
CARLSBAO. 0-UFQRHIA, 92000-1 ses
{019~ £3.4-2891
Q'f'YATTORN~
t<ARENJ. HIRATA
·cePUTY en,, ATTOIINP:Y
Robert P. Oli$la~ers, CAE·
Airport Manager
oepartl!lent at Public Works
McClellan-Palomar Airport
2198 P4l0mar Airpo~t RaAd
Carlsbad, Calitornia 92008
FAX: (619)43&•8367
Hay 3, l99J
f .. ·.lt..dv\if"
c. _v. P.
(Yl u.P . .
iU:: OPEAATICN OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL C:OOE SECTJ:ON 2l..~J.OlS
R.eQUIRING SUBMISSION oF· CE~1".AIN QUESTIONS TO CITY VOTERS PRrOR
TO CXTY COUNCIL LEQISV,.TXVE iCTIPN fQB AIRPORT EXfANSTQN
oaar Mr ■ Ol.islagers:
Sased on our discussions over the last several months and yow:
report entitled, "Mcclellan-Palo:taar Airport•• 1'armi.ru~l t1aval0pt11ant
and space Needs Analysis dated February lS1 l59J, I undar~tand the
county is contempla1:1n~ ac:comm~dating those needs in a nwnbar of!··
uays including tho rollowing options:
1. "C:Qnstruct faeilities at the present Palomar Airport sit.a
w~icb calls tor demolition o! current facilities on the
site and construction of new tacilitias in th~ir place.
cue to the relative small size, consideration will be
qiven to the cost o~ a multi~stoey facility to
accommodate the tarm1nal ~nd pat'Jting."
2. Acquisition of a new site contiguous to the ·air-p0rt boundarieg
ror construction. This ~lterna~ive calla for the acqui~ition o·r airport adjacent property and the location o: a. new
terminal and·~arking facilities on it. ~his aiternative will
allcw.-phasing of air carrier operations saparata from iGneral
aviatign operations. · .
3. It is my further understanding that t.he coun~y is ~cnsidering
acquiring two lots (lots 42 and 50 shown on the ~ttached site
plan ror tha Carlsbad Ai.r;port center) at the westerly and of
the runway tor c:::lear zone pu~oses.
=~e question presented -is whether .or not any or all 0f these
_ :_te!:'natives will requ!'r~ submittal to City voters.
The site plan, land uses ond conditions of approval for the Palo'tna~
Airport are so1: for-ch in the conditional waa. per.mi 1: (CUP 112)
approved by tho C~rlsbad Pl~nning Commission on Saptamber 24, 1960.
I have enclosed a copy af that u=,e per=it tor your files.
According-to 'r21ble l. ot the CUP, c:artain ~truc:turus ztnd rac1litias
ara permitted without the need tor additional disi:::l::'ati0114%'Y raviow.
For example, 5uch structures and ~acilittea include airport
administration btiildin9s amt airport paasengar terminal tacilitiezi.
otbar U:Jas, such as incidental eating and drin~ing establish=ants,
require approval by the Carlsbad Planning com=1$$ian.
In addition, a petition was circulated among Carlsbad voters in
1980 and presented t:o the Council on• August 5, 1980. At that time,
our office inQi0.ated that the county would need City counc:il
apprcv~l of expan$ian if it involved t:he acquisition of addition~l
property in which ease the petition ordinanca wouid require pri9r
voter· approv~l. ~n exp.:msi0n ot existins property wculct not be
at:e~tad by the o~4inanoa. On Augu~t 12, 1980, this ordinanQa was
adopted which is set forth in full:
tt2l.5J.015
e,q)ansion.
. Voter authot"i~ation required for airpi:,rt
{a) The city council shall not approve any zone Change,
general plan amendment a:t" any other legislative en~e1:mant
necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the ci'ty
nor shall the c::i ty commence any ac~ion or spand any funds
preparatory to or in anticipation of such approvals without
having been fir5t authoriied to do so by~ majority vote ot
tbe qualified •lectors ot the ~ity voting at an elactian for
such pr0paae!S.
{b) This section was proposed by iniciativ8 petition and
adopted by the VQtQ of the city ccuncil without sucldssion to
tha voter9 and it shall n0t be rapoalGd or amanaed excapt by
a vote ot the people."
· Therefore, c:gnstruction at the present sito would not requi.re
legi=slativ'! action by the. city council and would not require a vote
of the people. Amendment ot CUP 17a woald be required if any of
the structures or facilities are not those listed in Section I(a)
Table l of the CUP dated Septeml;Jer 24, 1980.
Acquisition of real• property outside the boundaries ct the plo
plan approved as Exhibit A tc CUP 172 would require redesignation
in carlsbad 's General Plan and rezoning in its zoning ordinanea
bo~h of Which ara legi~lative actions. Therefore, the property
AoquisitiQn for struct11res and facilities related to the airport
would require a ~eta of the people. --It is my further understanding that the proposed acquisition of
property far a ''clear tone" w-ould not. require fa~ilitias o.r
structures and would hct necessitate radesigna~ion or re~oning of
carlsb~d•s existing pl~nninq documents. As such, no legislative
action of the City council is ~equired and no vote of tne peQple
'.rnUld be required for these ac::quisitions.
Should you have any questions or need additlonal intcnmtion re911rding th.is matter, please do !'lot hesitate t~ contact ••-rmh enclosure c: Mayor and City council Ci1;y Mana9"er Dtruly yours, <-• :R RONALO R. BAU. City Attorney Community Development Director Pl~Minq Direecor Q ~
<timhutter@sbcglobal.net>
10/14/2005 11 :37 AM
To <Deborah_Murphy@URSCorp.com>
cc "'Brackett, Olivier"' <Olivier.Brackett@sdcounty.ca.gov>,
"'Drinkwater, Peter"' <Peter.Drinkwater@sdcounty.ca.gov>,
"'Rath, Philip P.'" <Philip.Rath@sdcounty.ca.gov>
bee
Subject RE: Page Change Request
History: ~ This message has been replied to.
Copy of Ball letter attached.
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah_Murphy@URSCorp.com [mailto:Deborah_Murphy@URSCorp.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:01 AM
To: Timothy Hutter
Cc: Brackett, Olivier; Drinkwater, Peter; Rath, Philip P.;
timhutter@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: Page Change Request
Mr. Hutton,
Can you e-mail the documentation you referenced (i.e, the letter from the
City Attorney)?
Thank you,
Deborah
(Embedded image moved to file: picl2653.gif)
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you receive this
message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain,
distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy
the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager
September 17, 2019
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan
Design Classification
Airport Master Plan Discussion
June 11, 2019:
1. Directed staff to return with a resolution opposing the County Board of
Supervisor’s preferred D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative allowing
a runway extension of up to 800-feet. Motion carried, 4/1. (Hall-No); and
2. Directed staff to return with a resolution supporting the B-II Enhanced
Alternative without a runway extension. Motion carried, 3/2. (Hall, Blackburn -
No).
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 Classification
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 Classification
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
f 1§f@j#@ "ll'if·➔~------------------------------------------------A-;rp_o_rt_M_•_s_t•_rP_l_•n_u_p_d_••_•
Exhibit 5.2 Airfield Alternative 1 -B-11 Facility
/
EXISTING PAVEMENT
RUNWAY EXTENSION
~ PROPOSED EMAS
-----AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
--JOA--RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA GRAPHIC SCAI.( -··-·-··-RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE 1 ~ 1 -----RUNWAY SAFETY AREA C,11 ttt:1')
Prepared by. Kimley-Hom, 2017
Afternatives Analysis
f 1.§fMj§fj• ::4 +ffl ~ ___________________________________________________ A_i.rpo_rt_M_as_,_.,_P_l•_n_U_pda_t_•_
Exhibit 5.6 Airtield Alternative 5 -ARC 0 .111 Modified Standards Compliance
NEW PAVEMENT
I REMOVED PAVEMENT
RUNWAY EXTENSION (800' TOTAL)
PROPOSED EMAS
-----AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE __ ,.,,., __ RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
TA:XIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA GAAPHIC $Cl.IL
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE "F, U° ,go ... ' -----RUNWAYSAF8Y AREA OH ,,n:i
Prep.nd by: Kiniey-Hom, 2017
Alte-matives Analysis --
Airport Master Plan Update
-County staff and PAAC recommended B-II Enhanced
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 MSC Alternative with option to:
•Extend Runway up to 800 feet
Recommended Action
Consider adoption of the following resolutions:
1. Opposing the San Diego County Board of Supervisors'
preferred D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative
McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design classification,
allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet; and
2. Supporting the B-II Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar
Airport Master Plan design classification, with no runway extension.