Loading...
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.