HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-17; City Council; ; Authorization for San Diego County's acquisition of property located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Runway Protection Zone - 5817 Dryden PlaceDecember 17, 2019
20. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR
AIRPORT RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE -Adoption of a resolution pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65402 determining that San Diego County's acquisition of 5817
Dryden Place is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan; and adoption of a resolution pursuant to California Public
Utilities Code Section 21661.6 approving San Diego County's acquisition and plan for the use
of 5817 Dryden Place for runway protection zone purposes for the existing runway at
McClellan-Palomar Airport. (Staff contact: Jason Haber, City Manager Department)
THIS ITEM WAS
CONTINUED TO
A DATE UNCERTAIN
{SEE MINUTES
FOR DETAILS)
CA Review l}Jl,
~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
December 17, 2019
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2958
Authorization for San Diego County's acquisition of property located
within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Runway Protection Zone -5817
Dryden Place
Recommended Action
1. Adopt a resolution pursuant to California Government Code Section 65402 determining that
San Diego County's acquisition of 5817 Dryden Place is consistent with the Carlsbad General
Plan and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and
2. Adopt a resolution pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 approving
San Diego County's plan for the use of 5817 Dryden Place and approving the county's
acquisition of the property for runway protection zone purposes for the existing runway at
the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Executive Summary
San Diego County has purchased property at 5817 Dryden Place (Site Map -Exhibit 3) for the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at McClellan-Palomar Airport. That purchase requires a finding
by the City Council that the purchase is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. California
law also requires advance approval of the purchase if the acquisition is for the purpose of
expanding or enlarging the airport.
The county completed the subject acquisition on Nov. 27, 2019, without first obtaining the
necessary city approvals. Had the county followed proper procedure and waited to receive city
approval prior to acquiring the property, staff would have recommended City Council approval
of such request. Given that none of the circumstances or analysis concerning the acquisition
have changed, other than the county having completed the acquisition prior to receiving city
approval, the staff position remains consistent, in that, staff recommends that the City Council
retroactively find that the purchase is consistent with the .Carlsbad General Plan and that the
City Council retroactively approve the purchase of the property and its use as a RPZ.
Discussion
· On Oct. 1, 2019, San Diego County notified the city of its proposed purchase of property at
5817 Dryden Place. The property has been the subject of litigation in part because the property
lies within the RPZ for the existing runway at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 1 of 19
A RPZ is an area beyond the end of a runway that is designed to enhance the safety of the
runway and the protection of people and prop~rty on the ground. While it is not legally
required that a RPZ be owned by the airport proprietor, for safety reasons, the FAA strongly
encourages airport proprietors like San Diego County to acquire all property (or property rights)
within a RPZ whenever practical. RPZs are not standard in size or shape. The shape, size and
location of a RPZ varies depending upon the geometry of a particular runway. The RPZ is an
integral part of the airport when it is owned by the airport proprietor.
This matter comes before the City Council because the acquisition triggers city authorizations
under two different sections of the California Code.
Legal Background
California Government Code Section 65402
California Government Code Section 65402 provides that a county, like San Diego County,
cannot purchase property within the city until the "location, purpose and extent of such
acquisition ... [has] been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to
conformity" with the city's General Plan.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 2.24;065 provides that the Planning Commission "shall not be
required to report as to conformity with the general plan" but instead that the "city council
shall make a finding of consistency with the general plan."
California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6
California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 requires that, prior to the acquisition of land by
the county for the purpose of "expanding or enlarging any existing publicly owned airport," the
county "shall submit a plan of that expansion or enlargement to the ... city council of the city,
in which the property proposed to be acquired is located."
The county should not have proceeded with the acquisition without City Council approval of the
plan for use of the property. It is the city's position that Section 21661.1 applies here because
the county's acquisition constitutes an expansion or enlargement of the airport for two
reasons: first, the RPZ is defined in California Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5 as part of the
airport. ("As used in this section, 'airport expansion' includes ... The acquisition of runway
protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/1500-13 .
. . ") Second, the RPZ is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan, an FAA-approved depiction of the
boundaries of the airport and provides the definition of the property that is subject to FAA
regulation.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015 provides that the "city council shall not approve any
zone change, general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to
authorize expansion of any airport in the city ... without having been first authorized to do so by
a majority vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such purposes." As
staff previously discussed with the City Council in January 2018, City Council actions taken
pursuant to California Public Utilities Code 21661.6 are not subject to voter ratification because,
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 2 of 19
according to the California Court of Appeals "the Legislature intended the authority it delegated
be exercised by the City Council in this case specifically and exclusively, precluding use of an
initiative in this area." City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, 113
Cal. App. 4th 465,477 (2003). Therefore, this section of the Carlsbad Code would not apply to
this proposed action. This conclusion is consistent with earlier advice from the city attorney in
1993.
Cooperation and Settlement Agreement
In March of this year, the county and the city entered into a Cooperation and Settlement
Agreement which included specific commitments by the county with respect to future property
acquisitions. The county agreed that, should it contemplate purchase of additional property for
the McClellan-Palomar Airport, "such a plan will first be discussed at the staff-level meetings in
advance of any public process with the goal of reaching mutual agreement on process to avoid
future disagreements or litigation."
While the subject acquisition was not first discussed at a city-county staff meeting, city staff
was contacted by phone in late September and informed by county staff that the county was in
active negotiations to acquire the subject property. The County submitted an official notice of
the proposed acquisition on Oct. 1, 2019, and written correspondence concerning this matter
was exchanged between the city and county on Nov. 5, Nov. 15, and Nov. 25, 2019 (Exhibits 4
through 7). At the Dec. 3, 2019, city-county staff meeting, county staff informed the ~ity that
the county closed escrow on the subject property on Nov. 27, 2019.
The Acquisition
On Oct. 1, 2019, the county informed the city in writing that it proposes to acquire the property
for the sole purpose of protecting it as the RPZ for the existing runway, as recommended by the
FAA. While the county has not provided a detailed plan for the use of the property, county
officials have explained the proposed use of the property in a letter from Brian Albright, San
Diego County Director of the Department of Public Works, to Don Neu, Carlsbad City Planner,
dated Nov. 15, 2019. In that letter, the county represented that: "The County's acquisition of
the property is intended to increase public safety and to ensure that future uses of the Property
are consistent with airport uses." The county also made the following statements concerning
its proposed plan to use the property (all quotations are from the Nov. 15 letter):
• The "owner of the Property has leased a portion of the building for office use. The
county has no intention of terminating this ongoing lease but does not intend to renew
it either."
• "Once the lease expires, all current office uses will terminate, and the Property will be
used for storage or some other purpose consistent with the ALUCP."
• The county "has no intention of allowing any expansion of uses inconsistent with the
ALUCP."
• The county "is acquiring the Property to bring it into compliance with the ALUCP."
Staff finds that the county's description of the use of the property in the Nov. 15, 2019, letter,
while not particularly detailed, provides sufficient information for the city to make a
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 3 of 19
consistency determination under Government Code Section 65402 and also is a sufficient plan
for purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6. In particular, the county has made clear
and precise commitments as to how it will use the property: it will be limited to uses which are
allowed within a RPZ that is owned by an airport proprietor. The county has implicitly indicated
that the RPZ is for the existing runway at McClellan-Palomar Airport, not for any future
potential use. Under FAA policies, the permitted uses for RPZs are highly circumscribed.
Furthermore, any intensive use of RPZ property requires additional approvals from the FAA, as
explained in current FAA policies ("Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Projection
Zone" (Sept. 27, 2012) and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.BA (2014) at ,i 310)
Analysis
California Government Code 65402
In reviewing the proposed acquisition with regard to General Plan consistency, staff considered
both the Carlsbad General Plan and the McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP). The General Plan Public Safety Element Policy 6-P.18 requires that the city "Ensure
that development in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area is consistent with the land
use compatibility policies contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan." ALUCP Safety Policy 3.4.5(a)(l) states that "the maximum acceptable intensity
(calculated as people per gross acre on a sitewide average) of proposed development (without
risk reduction policy objectives within the environs of the Airport is: Within Safety Zone 1 [RPZ]:
0 people per acre ... "
Currently, the building proposed for acquisition is at least partially occupied by a lessee for
office uses, meaning that the property contains a use that is inconsistent with both the Carlsbad
General Plan and the ALUCP. However, the county has stated in its Nov. 15, 2019, letter that
while the county does not intend to terminate the existing lease, it will not renew the lease
once it expires, all current office uses will terminate, and the property will be used for storage
or some other purpose consistent with the ALUCP. In addition, the county has stated that it has
no intention of allowing any expansion of uses inconsistent with the ALUCP and is acquiring the
Property to bring it into compliance with the ALUCP.
For these reasons, staff recommends a finding that the proposed acquisition is consistent with
both the Carlsbad General Plan and the ALUCP. Based on the county's commitments in its
letter dated Nov. 15, 2019, acquisition will enable the county to bring the use of the. property
into conformity with both the Carlsbad General Plan and the ALUCP.
California Public Utilities Code 21661.6
The more complex action is the proposed approval of the acquisition under California Public
Utilities Code 21661.6.
First, the county and the city disagree as to whether the proposed acquisition constitutes an
expansion or enlargement of the airport under California law. Staff has concluded that the
proposed purchase of property will constitute expansion or enlargement of the airport for
many reasons including the language quoted above from Public Utilities Code 21664.5 and that
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 4 of 19
the purchase will subject the property for the first time to stringent regulation by the FAA and
will result in the property being labeled as "airport property" on the FAA-approved Airport
Layout Plan. Simply stated, the property is not now part of McClellan-Palomar Airport and the
purchase will result in its being part of the airport for regulatory purposes. The land area of the
airport will thereby be enlarged.
Second, the county and city's disagreement about the applicability of Public Utilities Code
Section 21661.6 would only become an issue if the City Council were to disapprove the
acquisition. For reasons set forth in this Staff Report, staff recommends that the City Council
approve the acquisition. This means that any dispute over the scope of this statute would not
need to be resolved at this time.
FAA policies treat different safety zones around airports differently. The FAA requires that
some safety zones (e.g., the "runway safety area") must be owned or controlled by the airport
proprietor, whereas it only strongly recommends that the airport proprietor own or control
other safety zones (e.g., the "runway protection zone"). San Diego County does not own or
control all of the property within the RPZ for McClellan-Palomar Airport. The present proposal
represents the county's effort to acquire property which is presently used for an office building
- a use which is inconsistent with the land use principle underlying RPZs that no congregation
of people should be allowed within RPZs for safety reasons. Protection of the safety areas on
and around an airport is important not only for airport users but also for the general public. In
fact, RPZs exist primarily to protect the public, rather than airport users, from safety concerns
associated with the landing and takeoff of aircraft. Therefore, when acquisition or expansion of
a RPZ is practical, it is good public policy to allow that to occur.
Once acquired, RPZ property can be used by an airport proprietor for only limited purposes -
storage of equipment, temporary airport uses, and similar low-intensity, easily removable uses
that do not contemplate congregations of people. Permissible uses include farming, irrigation
channels, airport service roads, underground utilities, and navigation aids. FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5300.13A (2014) at ,i 310{d). RPZs cannot be used for parking lots, runways,
commercial purposes, airport buildings or the like. Most importantly, if an airport proprietor
ever wants to use RPZ property for a use that is not explicitly authorized, the airport proprietor
is required to seek special approval from the FAA Headquarters. Uses of a RPZ which are not
permitted without such special approval include buildings or structures, recreational uses,
transportation facilities (including vehicle parking), fuel storage, hazardous materials storage,
wastewater treatment facilities or above-ground utility infrastructure. See FAA, "Interim
Guidance for Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone" (Sept. 27, 2012) at 2.
There is no question that acquisition of property to improve airport safety is prudent public
policy. But, at the same time, the city needs to be vigilant to ensure that the property is, in fact,
used as a RPZ and not for other purposes. While FAA regulations and policies provide some
considerable protection against other uses, California law provides additional protection
through the city approval of the county's plan for use ofthe property under Public Utilities
Code Section 21661.6. If the city approves a plan that limits the use of the property to RPZ-
compatible uses, the county cannot change that plan without returning to the City Council for
approval.
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 5 of 19
Staff recommends that the City Council retroactively approve the acquisition and the plan
which is explicitly and precisely tied to the use of the property for a RPZ for the existing runway.
The approval of the plan should also explicitly prohibit any uses which are not set forth
explicitly in paragraph 310(d) of the FAA's Airport Design standards quoted above. Such a
condition will ensure that the county cannot use the property for another airport use other
than RPZ. Under the Public Utilities Code, the county would need additional city approval
should it ever desire to use the property for any other purpose. Staff recommends that the City
Council approval of the plan make that condition unequivocally clear.
Fiscal Analysis
The County of San Diego does not assess itself for property taxes on property that it owns.
However, while this property is being leased by the county to private parties, the city will
continue to collect its share of property, sales and business license taxes. This property is
currently assessed at just under $3.5 million. Expiration and non-renewal of the current lease
(in 2024) will equate to a loss in property tax revenue to the City of Carlsbad of approximately
$6,600 annually. In addition, depending on the type of businesses occupying this property, the
city's business license tax and sales tax revenues may also be affected.
Next Steps
If the City Council concurs with the staff recommendation, copies of the approved resolutions
will be transmitted to the county to inform them of the action taken by the City Council.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
The county has taken the position that, since the property is being acquired solely for RPZ
purposes and there is no plan to alter or improve the property (and current office uses will be
allowed to expire pursuant to the terms of existing leases), the proposed acquisition is exempt
from CEQA review pursuant to sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
City staff concurs with the county position as it relates to the city's required CEQA review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council Resolution -California Government Code Section 65402 -General Plan
Consistency Determination
2. City Council Resolution -California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 -approving County
of San Diego acquisition and plan for use of airport property
3. Google Maps Aerial -5817 Dryden Place
4. October 1, 2019, County of San Diego notice of proposed property acquisition
5. November 5, 2019, City of Carlsbad request for additional information
6. November 15, 2019, County of San Diego response to request for additional information
7. November 25, 2019, City of Carlsbad notice of Dec. 17 City Council consideration and public
hearing
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 6 of 19
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. -------
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 DETERMINING
THAT SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S ACQUISITION OF 5817 DRYDEN PLACE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN AND THE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65402 provides that a county, or other local
government, like San Diego County (the "County"), cannot purchase property for public purposes
within the City of Carlsbad (the "City") until the "location, purpose and extent of such acquisition has
been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity" with the City's
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 2.24.065 provides that the City Council shall
make the finding of consistency; and
WHEREAS, the County has purchased property at 5817 Dryden Place (the "Property") for the
Runway Protection Zone ("RPZ") at McClellan-Palomar Airport (the "Airport"); and
WHEREAS, the County has informed the City that the County's acquisition of the property is
for the purpose of increasing public safety and ensuring that future uses of the Property are
consistent with the purpose for which RPZs are established; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the County's acquisition with regard to consistency with
both the Carlsbad General Plan and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
("ALUCP"); and
WHEREAS, General Plan Public Safety Element Policy 6-P.18 requires the City to ensure that
development in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area. is consistent with the land use
compatibility policies contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and
ALUCP Safety Policy 3.4.5(a)(l) states that "the maximum acceptable intensity (calculated as people
per gross acre on a sitewide average) of proposed development (without risk reduction policy
objectives within the environs of the Airport is: Within Safety Zone 1 [RPZ]: 0 people per acre ... "; and
WHEREAS, because a building on the Property is at least partially occupied by a lessee, the
Property contains a use that is inconsistent with both the Carlsbad General Plan and the ALUCP; and
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 7 of 19
WHEREAS, the County has informed the City that it does not intend to renew the lease on
that building once it expires, and that at such time, all current office uses will terminate, and the
Property will be used for storage or some other purpose consistent with the ALUCP and consistent
with limitations on use of RPZs; and
WHEREAS, the County has also stated that it has no intention of allowing any expansion of
uses inconsistent with the ALUCP and is acquiring the Property to bring it into compliance with the
ALUCP;and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that acquisition of the Property will enable the County to
eliminate inconsistent uses on the Property in accordance with both the Carlsbad General Plan and
the ALUCP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the County's acquisition of the Property is
exempt from CEQA review pursuant to sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California that
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65402, the County's acquisition of the Property is
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and ALUCP.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on
the_-_ day of __ 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
[SEAL] -
2
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 8 of 19
Exhibit 2
RESOLUTION NO. ------
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION
21661.6 APPROVING SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S PLAN FOR THE USE OF 5817
DRYDEN PLACE AND APPROVING THE COUNTY'S ACQUISITION OF THE
PROPERTY FOR RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE PURPOSES FOR THE EXISTING
RUNWAY AT THE MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 requires that, prior to the
acquisition of land by San Diego County (the "County") for the purpose of expanding or
enlarging any existing publicly owned airport, the County shall submit a plan of that expansion
or enlargement to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, state law provides that the County cannot proceed with such an acquisition
without approval of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, if such an acquisition is approved by the City Council, the County can
purchase the property and use it in the manner set forth in the plan; and
WHEREAS, the County has purchased property at 5817 Dryden Place (the "Property") for
the Runway Protection Zone {RPZ) at McClellan-Palomar Airport (the ."Airport") without the
requisite City Council approvals; and
WHEREAS, it is the City of Carlsbad's (the "City") position that Section 21661.1 applies to
the proposed purchase because the proposed acquisition would constitute an expansion or
enlargement of the airport as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5,
because the Property will be designated as "airport property" on the Federal Aviation
Administration {"FAA")-approved Airport Layout Plan for the Airport and because the purchase
will result in the Property being part of the Airport for regulatory purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County described its proposed plan for the Property in a letter dated
Nov. 15, 2019, from Brian Albright, San Diego County Director of the Department of Public
Works, to Don Neu, Carlsbad City Planner, in particular, that the Property will be limited to uses
which are allowed within an RPZ that is owned by an airport proprietor, and not for any future
potential use; and
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 9 of 19
WHEREAS, regulations of the FAA, as set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150-5300.13D
(2014 edition) set forth the permissible uses of property within an RPZ without further FAA
approvals; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the information in the letter is a sufficient plan
(the "Plan") for purposes of Section 21661.6; and
WHEREAS, the FAA strongly recommends that the airport proprietor own or control
other safety zones (e.g., the "runway protection zone"); and
WHEREAS, the County does not own or control all of the property within the RPZ for the
Airport; and the proposed acquisition represents the County's effort to acquire property that is
presently used for a use that is inconsistent with the principle underlying RPZs that no
congregation of people should be allowed within RPZs for safety reasons; and
WHEREAS, protection of the safety areas on and around an airport is important not only
for airport users but also for the general public, and therefore, when acquisition or expansion
of an RPZ is practical, it is good public policy to allow that to occur; and
WHEREAS, once acquired, RPZ property can be used by an airport proprietor for
farming; irrigation channels, airport service roads, underground utilities, and navigation aids;
and
WHEREAS, RPZs cannot be used for parking lots, runways, commercial purposes, airport
buildings or the like and further FAA approvals are required for uses such as a building or
structure, recreational land use, transportation facilities (including vehicle parking), fuel
storage, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment facilities or above-ground utility
infrastructure·; and
WHEREAS, the location, size and geometry of an RPZ is directly tied to the runway that it
supports; and
WHEREAS, the runway at the Airport has a western end point at 33°07'36.7"N,
117°17'19.S"W and an eastern end point at 33° 7'46.66"N, 117°16'17.66"W; and
WHEREAS, the City is retroactively approving the County's acquisition of the Property
subject to the Plan; and
2
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 10 of 19
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 provides that the County cannot use the
Property in a manner inconsistent with the Plan without returning to the City Council for
approval of a modification to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed acquisition is exempt
from CEQA review pursuant to sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
that pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6, the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad hereby retroactively approves the acquisition of the Property subject to the Plan for
use of the Property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Plan for use of the Property shall be:
• The County may use the Property for the RPZ, and only for the RPZ, for the
existing Airport runway and only so long as the existing runway geometry and
end points are as set forth in this Resolution;
• The County is prohibited from using the Property for a purpose which is not one
of the five categories of uses set forth explicitly in paragraph 310(d) of FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300.13A (2014 edition).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
on the_-_ day of __ 2019, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
3
MATT HALL, Mayor
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 11 of 19
any int.eresttherein .. ,for the purpose of expanding or ~nlarging any existing publicly owned airport, the
acqujrfng entity $hall submit a plan of that expansion or enlargement to the ... city council of the city, in
which the property proposed to be acquired is located." The proposed acquisition of RPZ property in the
City constitutes an expansion or enlargement of the McCl.ellan Palomar Airport (see PubJic Utilities Code
Section 21664.S(b)(il)1 and therefore is subject to Section 21661.6. In the interest of transparency and
to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth on the subject, the City proposes t.o treat your letter (alor\gwith the
clarifying information as requested above) as a request for approval pursuant to the Pt1b.lic Utilities Code.
For ease of administration, and unless the County requests otherwise, once the PlanningDivisicm receives
the additional information that the County requires for the City's Section 65402 consistency
determination, the Planning Division will treat that 'information as the Cbunty's "plan1' under Section
21661.fi(a). Planning Division staff will review the plan and provide a reportto the Carlsbad City Council .
together with its report on the Section 65402 cor\sjstency determinatiQn. In accordance with Section
21661.G(c), the City Covncil will be reqt1ired to conduct a public hearing on the plan for use of the Prope'rty
atidther~after will approve or disapprove the ;:icquisition and the plan.
Finally; iJ:1 connection with the City's actions under Section$ 65402(a) and 21661.6{a), please inform us
.how the County intends to complyvJith the Cal.ifornia Environmental Quality Act ("CEO.A") so that the City ·
m,w determine the best course of action in meeting its own CEQA requirements related to these matters.
If you have any questions,. please feel free to contact me. We appreciate the County's continued
cooper ation on these matters ..
Si11c:erely,
~:IL
Doil Neu, AICP
City Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1 A$ used in this sect/on, "airport expansion" includes any of the following:
(1) The 9cqulsitidn of runway protection zdnes, as defined in Federal Aviatidn Adrninistratiori Advisdry Circ:ular
t50/1soo:....i3., or ofany interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion as set forth in this section. Cal. Pub.
UtiL Code Section i16645(b)(1).
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 15 of 19
BRIAN ALBRIGHT
DIRECTOR
November 15, 2019
Don Neu, City Planner
• <llnuniJl nf ~an ~iegn
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5510 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE410
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1237
(858) 694-2212
www.sdcou.nty.ca.gov/dpw/
City of Carlsbad, Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Exhibit 6
ACQUISITION OF APN 212-091-02 FOR RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
Dear Mr. Neu:
The County of San Diego (County) is in receipt of the November 5, 2019 letter from the
City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the proposed acquisition by the County of Assessor's
Parcel No. 212-091-02 (Property). The Property is currently located in the Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ) for McClellan-Palomar Airport and is identified as remaining in the
RPZ in the McClellan Palomar Master Plan Update. As the City notes, the existing use
of the Property for an office is inconsistent with the current McClellan Palomar Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the City's General Plan, but the development
and use were approved by the City under the previous Plans. The County's acquisition
of the property is intended to increase public safety and to ensure that future uses of the
Property are consistent with airport uses. While the County as a superior agency does
not require the City's finding of consistency with the General Plan or ALUCP in order to
proceed with the acquisition of the Property, the County's acquisition could resolve these
inconsistencies as well.
In accordance with Government Code section 65402, the County provided notice to the
City on October 1, 2019 of the proposed acquisition of the Property for Runway Protection
Zone. Section 65402 requires the County to provide notice of the "location, purpose and
extent of such acquisition." The County's notice adequately addressed each of these
requirements in that the notice contained the Assessor's Parcel Number of the Property
to be acquired and clearly stated it was being acquired for RPZ. A copy of the notice is
attached for your convenience. While we are more than happy to provide the additional
information requested by the City, this should not be interpreted as an agreement the 40-
day review period specified by Government Code section 65402 has yet to commence.
The matter was fully submitted to the City on October 1, 2019 and the 40-day period ·
started to run on that date. Furthermore, while Government Code section requires the
County to provide notice to the City and to receive a determination of compliance with the
General Plan, it does not preclude the County from proceeding with the acquisition of
property in the absence of such a determination.
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 16 of 19
City of Carlsbad
November 15, 2019
Page 2 of 3
With regard to the acquisition, the City requested that the County provide additional
information confirming that "(a) the County intends to change the use of the Property so
that its use will be limited to controlling land use within the RPZ and (b) ttie County does
not intend to enlarge the existing inconsistent use .... " Regarding point (a), the current
owner of the Property has leased a portion of the building for office use. The County has
no intention of terminating this ongoing lease but does not intend to renew it either. Once
the lease expires, all current office uses will terminate, and the Property will be used for
storage or some other purpose consistent with the ALUCP. Regarding request (b), the
County has .no intention of allowing any expansion of uses inconsistent with the ALUCP
and is acquiring the Property to bring it into compliance with the ALUCP. We hope that
· this information is helpful to the City in completing its review of the matter.
The City asserts in its letter that the acquisition of the Property for RPZ is an expansion
or enlargement of the Airport so that a plan is required to be submitted to and approved
by the City pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21661.6. The City cites to the
definition of "airport expansion" in Public Utilities Code section 21664.5 related to the
amendment of airport operating permits by the State as supporting this assertion. There ·
has been considerable confusion over the applicability of this definition to Section
21661.6. We think we can help resolve this confusion. A close reading of the statutes
shows that Section 21661.6 is not applicable because the acquisition of the Property for
RPZ is not an expansion or enlargement of the Airport;
Section 21664.5 states in pertinent part that "[a]s used in this section, 'airport expansion'
includes ... acquisition of runway protection zones .... " (Emphasis added.) The definition
of "airport expansion" in Section 21664.5 is specifically limited to that section and does
not apply to Section 21661..6. On the other hand, the term "airport" as used in Section
21661.6 is generally defined at Public Utilities Code section 21013. Airport is defined as
"any area of land ... which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of
aircraft, and any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for airport
buildings or other airport rfacilities or rights of way, and all airport buildings and facilities
located thereon." Safety area, like RPZ, is not included in the definition of Airport as it is
not used for the take-off or landing of aircraft or the support of aircraft operations. Instead,
it functions as a safety zone, like a set back from a street or road, to protect persons and
property next to the Airport.
While it is clear Section 21661.6 does a not apply to the acquisition of RPZ, we also note
that similarly worded state and local statutes aimed at requiring prior approvals for airport
land acquisitions for safety or operational efficiency have been found to be preempted by
federal law. (See, for example, Twp. of Tinicum v. City of Phila. (2010) 737 F. Supp. 2d
367; Tweed-New Haven AirportAuth. v. Town of East Haven (2008) 582 F. Supp. 2d 261;
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles ( 1992) 979 F. 2d
1338.) We do not, accordingly, believe the statute is enforceable even if read in the
manner the City asserts it should be. That said , the City is free to proceed with a review
of the information provided in the notice and this letter. This information is sufficient to
constitute a "plan" within the meaning of Section 21661.6. The County does not agree ·
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 17 of 19
City of Carlsbad
November 15, 2019
Page 3 of 3
that any prior approval of the plan pursuant to Section 21661 .6 is necessary for the
County to proceed with acquisition of the Property for RPZ.
Lastly, the City inquired as to the level _of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
review the County will complete for the acquisition of the Property. Since the Property is
being acquired for RPZ and there is no plan to alter or improve the Property and current
office uses will be allowed to expire pursuant to the terms of existing subleases, it is the
County's position that the proposed acquisition is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to
Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines .
. County anticipates that the above information is sufficient to resolve any City concerns
regarding the need for further action in this matter. If you have any additional questions,
please contact Anne Baldwin, Project Manager, at (619) 956-4819. We look forward to
our continued partnership with the City, working collaboratively toward the betterment of
both the Airport and Carlsbad overall.
fi"8t 1-J,;----
't:.. _ ~LBRIGHT, Director
,-,V Department of Public Works
Cc: Anne Baldwin, County Airports
Dec. 17, 2019 Item #20 Page 18 of 19
Mia De Marzo
From: City Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:16 AM
To: Mia De Marzo; Tammy Cloud-McMinn; Sheila Cobian
Subject: FW: Protest Regarding 12-17-2019 City Council Agenda Item 20 & Public Hearing
Hello,
Please see the below Council Correspondence for Item No. 20 of last nights meeting.
Thank you,
\CT=ityof
Carlsbad
Hector Gomez
Deputy City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-434-5021 I hector.gomez@carlsbadca.gov
From: >
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:27 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>
All Receive -Agenda Item # .2_ _ _{)
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date llJJ7/N CA -,< cc .X
CM L CO{)):(_ DCM (3) )C"
Subject: Protest Regarding 12-17-2019 City Council Agenda Item 20 & Public Hearing
Dear Ms. Engleson:
Please distribute copies of the protest below (protesting Item 20 on tonight's city council meeting agenda) to all Carlsbad
city council members as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
1
VIA EMAIL
December 17, 2019
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Item 20 -Protest of the proposed adoption of a resolution (pursuant to California Government Code Section
65402) determining that San Diego County's (County) acquisition of 5817 Dryden Place is consistent with the Carlsbad
General Plan and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and protest of the proposed adoption of a
resolution (pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6) approving San Diego County's acquisition and
plan for the use of 5817 Dryden Place for runway protection zone purposes for the existing runway at McClellan-Palomar
Airport.
To the City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad (City) and the Honorable Carlsbad City Council Members:
We would like to please protest the adoption of the proposed resolutions referred to above for the following
reasons, among others:
1) Reasonable advance public notice of proposed resolutions was not made, and a necessary public hearing was not
held considering the complexity of these matters, and their importance to the public's best interests.
2) Adequate advance public notice of these matters was not provided to the public to enable them to be prepared for a
public hearing tonight at the council meeting (as referred to and proposed in Mr. Neu's internal letter to the County dated
only this past November 25, 2019 (included in the agenda packet).
3) The adoption of these resolutions is not necessary at this time, and these resolutions are not in the public's best
interests.
2
4) Facts and conclusions in the County's letter to the City of Carlsbad dated November 15, 2019 (included in the agenda
packet), are inaccurate and insufficient.
5) We believe related matters are not exempt from review under CEQA.
Accordingly, we would like to please protest the adoption of the proposed resolutions referred to above at tonight's City
Council meeting, and we would also like to please request that a formal public hearing regarding these matters be
properly noticed and held. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Giovanni and Anne Bertussi
3
Hector Gomez
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
All Receive -Agenda Item # o((,)
For the Information of the:
. ~I,:,( fOUNCIL
Date foJ..llf;./!!_CA ~ CC X
CM'< COOK_DCM (3) K
Vickey Syage .
Sunday, December 15, 2019 10:38 AM
Matthew Hall; Priya Bhat-Patel; Keith Blackburn; Cori Schumacher
Scott Chadwick; Celia Brewer; City Clerk
--
Subject: Agenda Item #20 -City Council Meeting on Dec 17, 2019 -Palomar Airport Property
Purchase.
Dear All,
Wow. Agenda Item# 20 - A retroactive Resolution Approving a Property Purchase for Palomar Airport by the County
that BROKE the Palomar Airport Settlement Agreement signed just a few months ago .....
Item# 6 of The Palomar Airport Settlement Agreement states that the County would work with the City BEFORE acquiring
any property around the airport. Citizens for a Friendly Airport, a volunteer group, brought this particular property
purchase to the City's attention in Oct 2019. Not one word, not one phone call, not one email, not one meeting from the
County to the City about this purchase which apparently had been in the works at the County level for MONTHS.
So seriously, how does an agreement work when one party (County) is dishonest and secretive with the other (City} and
breaks the agreement literally the first time an issue comes up? The County of San Diego has ZERO respect for the City
of Carlsbad, its residents, and the Carlsbad City Council when it comes to Palomar Airport. They haven't for at least the
past 15 years and this action shows they continue to do so. The question becomes, what is our City Council going to do
about it? Is the Council going to represent the City and its residents? Where will the City go from here as far as this
agreement goes?
Read the Agreement for yourselves here -Item #6 on pg 5 entitled "Property Purchases." The County broke the
Agreement. Pure and simple.
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload. aspx?Blobl D=38136&fbclid= lwAR236Z3 EvV6Ymbt2 d 1 BDq97Sv9gi
NjbRE6KjsrCaNT92Zzb1 Zt aJVrbHM
Oh, and for the record, I personally drove down to the County BOS meeting on Nov 20, 2019 where the BOS approved
this purchase. I had the item removed from the Consent Calendar, informed the County BOS that the purchase was in
violation of the Settlement Agreement, that the County needed to discuss the purchase with the City of Carlsbad, and
perform an EIR. I was met with dead silence on the major questions, a motion by Jim Desmond to approve the purchase
and a 4-0 vote (Gaspar recused) to do so. You may view that video as well right here. It's Agenda Item #1 on the BOS
Nov 20, 2019 meeting. My questions/comments start at the 16 minute 21 second mark.
https://sdcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=9&clip id=2428
My final question is What are you, collectively, as our City Leaders, going to do about it?
Respectfully,
Vickey Syage
1
December 12, 2019
All Receive -Agenda Item # ,;/ C)
For the Information of th;-
CITY COUNCIL
Datell/A,jtf CA l( cc )(
CM 2£... coo K._ DCM (3) K
Federal Aviation Administration
Western Pacific Region Regional Administrator
Ms. Raquel Girvin
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Steve Dickson, Administrator
777 S. Aviation Blvd, Ste. 150
El Segundo, CA 90245
Email: Raquel.girvin@faa.gov
California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics
Mary Beth Herrit Acting Division Chief
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: Mary.Beth.Herrit@dot.ca.gov
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
(866) 835-5322
Email: steve.dickson@faa.gov
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority/Airport Land Use Commission
Board Members and ALUC Members
Kimberly J. Becker, President/CEO Email: kbecker@san.org
Assistant Authority Clerk Linda Gehiken, CMC Email: lgehlken@san.org
P.O. Box 82776
San Diego, California 92138-2776
C. April Boling, Board Chair, Email: aboling@san.org
Paul Robinson, Vice Chair, Email: probinson@san.org
Greg Cox, Email: gcox@san.org
Mark Kersey, Email: mkersey@san.org
Robert T Lloyd, Email: rlloyd@san.org
Paul "Mac" McNamara, Email: pmcnamara@san.org
Johanna Schiavoni, Email: johanna@schiavoni-law.com
Michael Schumacher, Email: michael@enactpartners.com
Mark B. West, Email: mark.west@imperialbeachca.gov
CC: evea@imperialbeachca.gov
Co. Charles Dockery, Ex-Officio Member
Gayle Miller, Ex-Officio Member
San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG)
Board of Directors 1
40 I B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 9210 I
Email: c/o clerk@sandag.org
County of San Diego Board of Supervisors
Clo Executive Officer/Clerk of the Board Andrew Potter
1600 Pacific Highway, Fourth Floor, Room 402
San Diego, CA 92101
Email: Andrew.Potter@sdcounty.ca.gov
Chair Dianne Jacob Email: dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Vice Chair Greg Cox Email: greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
District 3 Representative Kristin Gaspar Email: kristin.gaspar@sdcounty.ca.gov
District 4 Representative Nathan Fletcher Email: nathan.fletcher@sdcounty.ca.gov
District 5 Representative Jim Desmond Email: jim.desmond@sdcounty.ca.gov
City of Carlsbad
City Manager, Scott Chadwick, manager@carlsbadca.gov
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mayor Matt Hall Email: Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov
Council Member Keith Blackburn, Email: keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov
Council Member Cori Schumacher, Email: cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov
Council Member Priya Bhat-Patel, Email: priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov
City Attorney Celia Brewer, Email: attorney@carlsbadca.gov
Assistant to City Manager Jason Haber, Email: Jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov
Office of the City Clerk, Email: clerk@carlsbadca.gov
Federal and State Elected Officials
Senator Diane Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
1 Chair Steve Vaus (Poway), Vice Chair Catherine Blakespear (Encinitas), Councilmember Cori Schumacher (Carlsbad), Mayor Mary Salas
(Chula Vista), Councilmember Mike Donovan (Coronado), Deputy Mayor Ellie Haviland (Del Mar) Mayor Bill Wells (El Cajon), Mayor Paul
McNamara (Escondido), Mayor Serge Dedina (Imperil Beach),Councilmember Kristine Alessio (La Mesa), Mayor David Zito (Solano Beach),
Councilmember Alessio, Mayor Racquel Vasquez (Lemon Grove), Mayor Alejandra Sotelo-Solis (National City), Deputy Mayor Jack Feller
(Oceanside), Council President Georgette Gomez (City of San Diego), Mayor Rebecca Jones (San Marcos), Mayor Zito, Supervisor Jim
Desmond (County of San Diego), and Mayor Judy Ritter (Vista)
2
Senator Kamala Harris
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Mike Levin
US Representative for California's 49th Congressional District
1626 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Patricia Bates
California State Senator, District 36
169 Saxony Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
Tasha Boerner Horvath
CA Assembly Member, District 76
325 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite A-2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: City of Carlsbad and Community Opposition to County of San Diego McClellan-
Palomar Airport [CRQ] 2018 Master Plan Projects to Convert CRQ to a D-111
Airport and to Extend and/or Relocate the CRQ Runway
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Background
Citizens for a Friendly Airport (C4F A) is a non-profit community group. It informs Carlsbad and
surrounding community residents of the noise, air quality, GHG, traffic, safety, and other impacts of
expanding McClellan-Palomar [CRQ] Airport. See its website at C4F A.org. See also savecarlsbad.com.
Because the County of San Diego prepared a defective CRQ Master Plan EIR, C4F A has challenged the
county EIR in the San Diego Superior Court. A court decision is expected in mid or late 2020.2 The
2016 FAA Community Involvement Manual3 states:
2
Case Number
37-2019-00028690-CU•
TT-CTL
37•20111:00057624-CU-n-cTL
Partlclpant Name ,
cmzens for a Fnendly
Airport
Cibzens for a Fr1endly
Airport
Role, Filing
Date, Case TIiie,
Plaintiff 06104119 Citizens for a Fnendly Airport vs City of Cerlsbad
[IMAGED]
Plaintiff ll/06/lB Citizens for a Friendly Airport vs County of San
Diego [E-FILE]
ff
3 See FAA Community Involvement Manual at
Category,
Civil•
Unlimited
Civil•
Unlimited
Case Type,
Toxic
Tort/Environmental
Toxic
Tort/Environmental
https://v.,ww.faa.gov/about/office _ org/headquarters _ offices/aplienviron __policy _guidance/guidance/media/faa _ cim.pdf
3
"The views of communities---including local residents, the general public, and stakeholders--are
important to the FAA ... This update ... reaffirms our commitment to inform and involve the public and to
give meaning/it! consideration to community concerns and views .... "
County will ask for FAA grants in an amount up to$ 70 million (in 2016 dollars) in the next few years.
County wants to extend the Palomar runway over a methane-emitting landfill up to 800-feet and shift the
entire runway north a bit. County also wants to conve11 Palomar from an FAA-rated B-II airport to a D-
III airport. County will also ask for grants from the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics.
Before the FAA and California consider such grants, they should understand community concerns.
Stakeholder Positions: Carlsbad City Council
CRQ sits entirely within Carlsbad. At its September 17, 2019 Carlsbad City Council meeting, the council
adopted Resolutions 2019-178 and 2019-179 ( copies attached), which respectively provide in part:
• '·The City of Carlsbad opposes the San Diego County Board of Supervisors' preferred D-111
Modffied Standard~ Compliance Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan design
classification, allowing a runway extension up to 800 feet."
• ·'The City of Carlsbad supports the B-11 Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar Airport
Alaster Plan design classification, with no runway extension."
Stakeholder Positions: Community: Existing CRQ Over Capacity and Safety Concerns
Decades ago, county asked Carlsbad to annex the CRQ area so that the airport could receive fire and other
city services. In 1980, county agreed to abide by Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172. CUP 172
required CRQ to remain a "General Aviation Basic Transp011 Airport" unless county first amended CUP
1 72. County has not requested a CUP 1 72 amendment from Carlsbad to expand CRQ. The FAA
classifies CRQ as B-II.
Despite agreeing to keep CRQ as an airport for local transportation, the county built the Palomar runway
with a width of 150-feet rather than the FAA AC Airp011 Design guideline of75 -100 feet for a B-II
airpo11. As a result, CRQ has annually attracted since 1990 more than 5,000 FAA-rated C and a few D
aircraft, mainly corporate jets.
Since 2007, CRQ has had steadily declining traffic, a fact reflected in the most recent FAA TA F reports.
For the last 5 years, CRQ has also been unable to sustain successful passenger air carrier operations.
Moreover, the county 2018 Palomar Master Plan (PMP) forecasts CRQ 2036 operational levels about
30% less than CRQ 1990 levels. As a result, county for some time has been using its CRQ FAA-paid-for
passenger parking lot to store automobiles from new car dealers a short distance away.
Citizens for a Friendly Airport supports CRQ's continued operation and maintenance of its existing 4900-
foot runway. That runway is capable of supporting flights throughout California and to most U.S.
destinations.
Citizens for a Friendly Airp011 also supp011s the county immediately adding EMAS safety systems to
BOTH runway ends as substitutes for the too short JOO-foot west end RSA and the 1000-foot east end
4
RSA in the middle of a methane-emitting landfill.4 County installed the on-airpo11 CRQ landfills without
written DOT Secretary permission as required by the FAA Grant Assurances.
FAA airp011 design guidelines call for airports to have 1000-foot Runways Safety Areas (RS As) at each
runway end if the runways annually serve more than 500 C or larger aircraft or a substitute 350-foot
EMAS.
Immediately installing an EMAS on each CRQ runway end would greatly increase airp01i safety and
honor the FAA 2000 promise to upgrade non-conforming RSAs across the United States.
Stakeholder Positions: CRQ General Aviation Users
Small General Aviation aircraft comprise about 85% of CRQ annual flights. In its 2018 CRQ Master
Plan and CRQ EIR, county said it would select the PMP project alternative based on 8 specific criteria.
One criterion was the alternative impact on aircraft already based at Palomar.
When San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn commented at the December 16, 2015 Board of Supervisor
meeting on the Palomar Master Plan being prepared, he stated on the record that many CRQ General
Aviation users should prepare to move to other airports. In addition, in October 2018 several supervisors
stated that converting CRQ to a D-III airport would improve county airport capacity for regional aircraft,
which would necessarily result in displacing General Aviation aircraft.
The foregoing BOS comments emphasize that a CRQ D-lll alternative will adversely impact many GA
aircraft using CRQ. As the FAA is aware from a 2005 FAA docket case, CRQ tenants long ago
expressed concerns about FBOs serving GA aircraft being squeezed out of CRQ. 5
Stakeholder Positions: CRQ Financial Responsibility and Qualification for FAA Grants
County's 2018 PMP said county wanted a financially responsible CRQ project alternative qualifying for
FAA grants. But County wants to augur hundreds of very deep pilings into the CRQ runway east end
landfill to support grade beams for a runway extension.
The extension cost would be at least 10 times the usual cost due to county violating the FAA Grant
Assurances and creating an unstable, methane-emitting closed landfill, which in the 2000s had a six-
month underground fire. The FAA AIP Handbook and FAA Benefit Cost Manual each preclude FAA
financing such a project.
Stakeholder Position: County Selected a 2018 CRQ Project Alternative without Considering the
San Diego Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Analysis of the
Impact of CRQ Development on Surrounding Communities
County's 2018 CRQ Master Plan also said county would pick a CRQ project alternative after taking into
account the impact of CRQ development on surrounding communities.
4 But C4F A has one major EMAS caveat. FAA or State funds for the CRQ WEST end EMAS system should not
include any amount for a WEST end massive retaining wall, which only former Supervisor Bill Hom wanted to add
50 to 100 feet to the airport in anticipation of a distant 900-foot runway extension.
5 See Pacific Coast Flyers, Inc. v. County of San Diego, FAA Docket No. 16-04-08 of July 25, 2005.
5
California state law assigns to the San Diego Country Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC) responsibility for preparing a Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP) to
assess the safety and noise impacts of airpott development.
Although county has been preparing its 2018 CRQ Master Plan since 2015, County waited until 3 weeks
before the BOS voted on the CRQ Master Plan to advise the ALUC of its CRQ plan. Accordingly, the
BOS had no ALUC evaluation before it when the BOS acted. Nor did county independently perform any
material analysis of outside the airpo1t safety and noise impacts.
Moreover, when the community raised safety concerns in their comments on the CRQ Master Plan, the
county replied that its EIR dealt only with environmental concerns, not safety concerns.6
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the county routinely and repeatedly ignored most of its 2018 CRQ Master Plan
self-identified project-selection criteria, and county's D-III alternative and proposed runway extension
and relocation do not comply with FAA grant award criteria.
We request that the FAA, State Department of Aeronautics, San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority Land Use Commission, and San Diego County Association of Governments (SANDAG) take
into account the foregoing information when they review the CRQ Airpott Layout Plan, receive county
CRQ grant applications, and take any other CRQ-related actions.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter. You may provide any reply to Ms. Hope Nelson at
hopen5 l@att.net or at Citizens for a Friendly Airport, 7040 A venida Encinas, Suite I 04-467, Carlsbad,
CA 92011.
Raymond Bender on behalf of C4F A
Attachments: City of Carlsbad Resolutions 2019-178 and 2019-
6 This county position was especially unfortunate for two reasons. First, the county was processing both its 20-year
CRQ Master Plan and the related EIR. Even if county were correct that California CEQA law required only
environmental analysis, county had circulated both its Master Plan and its EIR for comment and said in both
documents that it would take into account safety concerns. County deliberately chose not to respond to the safety-
concern comments even as to its Master Plan. Second, county and/or the FAA chose not to undertake a joint
NEPA/CEQA analysis. We understand that FAA Order 1050.1 (See page 2, § 5) requires a NEPA analysis to
include safety concerns.
6
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
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-I11 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 8-11
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
8-11 airport; and
WHEREAS, McClellan-Palomar airport is currently used by 8-11 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-I11 and B-11 alternatives can accommodate the aviation forecasts in the
proposed Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the D-I11 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 8-11 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:
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
~ H_tdor G11tne z., Dt,ut)
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk l ,'t.>,
(SEAL) )J C e1Ji,
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)
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 stafFs 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
8-11 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 8-11 Enhanced Alternative can accommodate the aviation forecasts in the
proposed Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the 8-11 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 8-11 Enhanced Alternative does not necessitate shifting the runway; and
WHEREAS, the 8-11 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
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 0-111
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 ..
~ 1/ecM ~ez1 DtflHJ ~l BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk Cif.J
(SEAL) J . .r (}~lu
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) 55.
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)
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
December 17, 2019
San Diego County
Acquisition of 5817 Dryden Place for
McClellan-Palomar Airport RPZ
5817 Dryden Place
•Acquired by San Diego
County –Nov. 27, 2019
•Located in RPZ
•Airport expansion /
enlargement
Recommended Action
1.Adopt resolution pursuant to CA GOV 65402
determining county’s acquisition is consistent
with General Plan and ALUCP, and
2.Adopt resolution pursuant to CA PUC 21661.6
approving county’s acquisition and plan for the
use of the property for RPZ for existing runway.
CA GOV 65402
County cannot purchase property within city until
“location, purpose and extent of such acquisition . . .
[has] been submitted to and reported upon … as to conformity” with the city’s General Plan.
CMC 2.24.065 -City Council shall make a finding of consistency with the general plan.
CA PUC 21661.6
Prior to acquisition of land by county for the
purpose of “expanding or enlarging any existing
publicly owned airport,” the county “shall submit
a plan of that expansion or enlargement to the ...
city council of the city, in which the property
proposed to be acquired is located.”
Airport Expansion / Enlargement
1.CA PUC 21664.5 -‘airport expansion’ includes
the acquisition of RPZs.
2.RPZ is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan, an
FAA-approved depiction of the boundaries of
the airport which defines the property that is
subject to FAA regulation.
CMC 21.53.015
City Council shall not approve any zone change,
general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion of any airport in the city. . .without having been first
authorized to do so by a majority vote of the
qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such purposes.
CMC 21.53.015 vs. CA PUC 21661.6
•“the legislature intended the authority it delegated be exercised by the City Council in this case specifically and exclusively, precluding use of an initiative in this area.” California Court of Appeals -City of
Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, 113 Cal. App. 4th 465, 477 (2003).
•Therefore, CMC 21.53.015 would not apply to this proposed action.
Cooperation & Settlement Agreement
Section 6. Property Purchases
“Should the County contemplate purchase of additional property for the Airport, such a plan will first be discussed at the staff-level meetings
in advance of any public process with the goal of
reaching mutual agreement on process to avoid future disagreements or litigation.”
5817 Dryden Place -Chronology
•Late 2018 County receives owner’s offer to sell
•Sept. 6, 2019 County secures option to purchase property
•Sept. 19 County announces proposed acquisition at PAAC meeting
•Sept. ?County calls to inform city staff of potential acquisition
•Sept. 24 City/County staff meeting –County presents details of proposed acquisition
•Oct. 1 County supplies notice per GOV Code 65402
•Oct. 16 County BOS sets public hearing for Nov. 20
5817 Dryden Place -Chronology
•Nov 5. City request for additional information & notice of applicability of PUC 21661.6
•Nov. 15 County provides additional information & asserts non-applicability of 21661.6
•Nov. 20 County BOS approves property acquisition
•N ov. 25 City notification of Dec. 17 public hearing & City Council consideration
•Nov. 27 County completes property acquisition
•Dec. 3 City/County staff meeting –County informs city of new ownership status
Recommended Action #1
1.Adopt resolution pursuant to CA GOV 65402
determining county’s acquisition is consistent
with General Plan and ALUCP, and
Recommended Action #1
General Plan Public Safety Element Policy 6-P.18
“Ensure that development in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area is consistent with the land use compatibility policies contained in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
ALUCP Safety Policy 3.4.5(a)(1)
“Maximum acceptable intensity … of proposed development … within Safety Zone 1 [RPZ]: 0 people per acre.”
Recommended Action #1
-Existing building is partially occupied –office use
-Current use is inconsistent.
-Lease will not be renewed.
-County ownership will result in
compliance/consistency over time.
Recommended Action #2
2. Adopt resolution pursuant to CA PUC 21661.6
approving county’s acquisition and plan for the
use of the property for RPZ for existing runway.
Recommended Action #2
•FAA strongly recommends airport operators own or control land within RPZs
•Enhanced safety for airport users and the general public
•Permissible uses: farming, irrigation channels, airport service roads, underground utilities, and navigation aids
Recommended Action #2
•Retroactive City approval:
–asserts city jurisdiction
–limits allowable use to RPZ-compatible uses
for existing runway
–prohibits non-RPZ-compatible use
Recommended Action
1.Adopt resolution pursuant to CA GOV 65402
determining county’s acquisition is consistent
with General Plan and ALUCP, and
2.Adopt resolution pursuant to CA PUC 21661.6
approving county’s acquisition and plan for the
use of the property for RPZ for existing runway.