Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-13; City Council; ; City comment letter on County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report~ CITY COUNCIL ~ Staff Report Meeting Date To: From: Staff Contact: March 13, 2018 Mayor and City Council Kevin Crawford, City Manager Jason Haber, Assistant to the City Manager Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov CA Review ..f(;J_ Subject City comment letter on County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Recommended Action Approve a city comment letter for submittal to the County of San Diego on its McClellan- Palomar Master Plan Update and draft program environmental impact report, and authorize the City Attorney to make any necessary final revisions. Executive Summary This item presents and is limited to the consideration of a draft city comment letter to be approved by the City Council in advance of submittal to the County of San Diego. McClellan-Palomar Airport is owned and operated by the County of San Diego ("County") and located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Carlsbad. The County has prepared an update to its 1997 Airport Master Plan and an accompanying Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Public comments on these documents are being accepted through Monday, March 19, 2018. City staff has been working with the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell to prepare a draft comment letter, which focuses on the following principal areas of concern: 1. Accurately and consistently describing the nature and extent of future airport operations. 2. Thoroughly analyzing and disclosing the impacts of the Master Plan Update projects and future aircraft operations. 3. Identifying robust and effective mitigation measures to mitigate impacts on Carlsbad residents. 4. Understanding the County's intentions regarding the extent to which they will abide by, and conform to, the City's land use regulations related to the Airport. Discussion On January 18, 2018, the County of San Diego released the proposed McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). On February 20, 2018, Council received a presentation from staff and the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell regarding the City of Carlsbad's land use and regulatory authority related to the March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 1 of 87 County's proposed Master Plan Update. At that time, Council requested that staff return to receive Council feedback, direction and approval of a draft city comment letter in advance of the March 19, 2018, public comment submittal deadline. Council also requested that staff obtain cost and scheduling information regarding a potential city ballot measure, and prepare a discussion of other available strategies to address community concerns about airport operations. Staff will return to Council with the requested information at a future City Council meeting. City staff attended two community meetings hosted by the County of San Diego (January 30, and February 13, 2018), as well as a meeting hosted by Council Member Cori Schumacher (March 6, 2018), which were held for the purposes of updating, engaging, and collecting feedback from the public on the proposed Master Plan Update and DEIR. The city's draft comment letter (Exhibit 1) is informed by an extensive review ofthe proposed Master Plan Update and DEIR, expert advice, applicable law, and the public record; including a consideration of public comments and correspondence provided by Carlsbad residents and other concerned parties (Exhibit 2). As there may be a need to incorporate minor technical edits following Council review and approval, staff is recommending that Council approve a draft letter and authorize the City Attorney to make any necessary final revisions. Fiscal Analysis No city funding is being requested at this time. Next Steps Upon Council approval, staff will finalize the city comment letter for signature and submittal to the County. Staff will continue to pursue information regarding a potential city ballot measure and other strategies to address community concerns about airport operations, and will return to Council for further discussion. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) Approving a comment letter does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Public Notification This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), published and distributed at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time. Exhibits 1. DRAFT -Comments on the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report 2. Correspondence received as of March 7, 2018. 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 2 of 87 DRAFT 3/7/18 [CITY LETTERHEAD] Cynthia Curtis, Environmental Planning Manager County of San Diego Department of Public Works 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123 Re: Comments on the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Curtis: Exhibit 1 The City of Carlsbad submits the attached comments on the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared in connection with the Master Plan Update. The City and San Diego County have had a cooperative working relationship regarding the operation of the Airport and the County's compliance with the City's land use policies related to the Airport. We expect and appreciate that the County will continue its long-standing policy ofrespecting the City's land use policies and objectives. To that end, we believe that the Master Plan Update should acknowledge that history and the County's intentions in that regard. With a goal of continuing that cooperation, the City requests that revisions to the Master Plan Update and Draft EIR focus on the following principal areas of concern, consistent with our detailed comments: 1. For transparency, the documents should properly, accurately and consistently describe the nature and extent of future airport operations. The public deserves a thorough and plain-English explanation of the types and extent of commercial service expected to be accommodated by the Master Plan Update projects and the extent to which future commercial traffic is merely accommodated or induced by the Master Plan Update projects. 2. The documents should thoroughly analyze and disclose the impacts of the Master Plan Update projects and aircraft operations, including impacts related to aesthetics, noise, surface transportation, air quality, biological and greenhouse gas emissions. 3. We request that the County commit to robust and effective mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts on Carlsbad residents of the Master Plan Update projects. 4. As noted above, the public expects that the documents will clearly describe the County's intentions regarding the extent to which the County will abide by, and conform to, the City's land use regulations related to the Airport. March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 3 of 87 The City looks forward to working with San Diego County and its consultants to ensure that the Master Plan Update and its various project components are undertaken in a manner that does not compromise the health and well-being of Carlsbad residents, while ensuring that requirements for safety and air navigation are met at the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Sincerely, 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 4 of 87 MASTER PLAN UPDATE COMMENTS Capitalized terms not otherwise defined below have the meanings set forth in the Master Plan Update. References to CEQA Guidelines refer to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 -15387. I. COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE The following comments address issues that apply to multiple sections of the Master Plan Update. A. Definition of Airport Property and Indication of Airport Boundaries McClellan-Palomar Airport is referred to throughout the Master Plan Update as the "Airport"; however, it is unclear from this definition what property is considered to be within the airport boundary. Moreover, the various exhibits included in the Master Plan Update do not consistently indicate a single airport boundary. For example, certain exhibits indicate that the parking area to the south of the airport is within the airport boundary (see, for example, Exhibit 2.1 [Existing Airfield Facilities] [p. 2-2], while others do not include this area (see, for example, Exhibits 2.17 [Compatibility Policy Map -Safety] [p. 2-40] and 5.1 [ Airport Influence Area/Safety Zones] [p. 5-11 ]). Please distinguish between the boundary of County-owned airport property and the boundary of airport operations, and ensure that these definitions and boundaries are used consistently throughout the Master Plan Update. Additionally, please clarify how these boundaries relate to the area subject to CUP 172 and CUP 172(B). Moreover, as discussed below in relation to the DEIR, please ensure that the definitions and boundaries used to identify the airport property in the Master Plan Update are also used consistently within the DEIR, which does not appear to include the area to the northeast of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road within the Airport Study Area (the "Eastern Parcel"). As the County recognizes, a proper identification of the airport boundary has more than mere practical implications. Under FAA regulations, the County is required to maintain both a current Airport Layout Plan and an airport property map, both of which accurately depict the real property that is subject to FAA grant obligations. (See generally, FAA Order 5190.5B, Airport Compliance Manual,§ 7.18.) Whether a particular parcel is (a) merely owned by the County but not formally designated as part of the airport; (b) owned by the County, designated as part of the airport and properly approved by the FAA for non-aeronautical uses; or ( c) owned by the County, designated as part of the airport and authorized only for aeronautical uses, are all significant legal distinctions that affect the future uses of the property, and the role of the City and the County in planning for use of the property. The designation of County-owned property as lying within the boundary of the airport has financial and legal significance under federal, state and local law; the City needs to understand the precise boundary in order to comment meaningfully on key elements of the Master Plan Update. The Airport Layout Plan is not included in the Master Plan Update and there is an indication that it will be attached, perhaps to the final version after final approvals. We request that the Master Plan Update include both the current and proposed Airport Layout Plan in its entirety (to include the airport property map and appropriate maps of airport safety geometry). 3 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 5 of 87 The Master Plan Update also fails to disclose whether the County is planning to seek FAA approval for the change in designation of any airport property from aeronautical to non- aeronautical uses or whether the County is planning to designate any County-owned property that lies outside the Airport Layout Plan as airport property for purposes of FAA regulations. Such planning is crucially important for the City to understand its role and the potential flexibility in future uses of such property. Providing a copy of the Airport Layout Plan airport property map ( or Exhibit A to the latest FAA grant application) will be enormously valuable for public evaluation of the Master Plan Update. Finally, "Airport" should only be used to mean the facility or the location of the airport, not an entity capable of taking action with respect to the Proposed Project. See, for example, Section 5.7.6 (Preferred Airfield Alternative), which provides that "It is also recommended that the Airport pursue land acquisition for any and all existing and ultimate RPZs although this action may not be determined as practical. .. " (p. 5-42) Please ensure that the term "Airport" is not used to refer to an action by the County. B. Modification of D-111 Standards The Master Plan Update contemplates that the project improvements will consist of the D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative. We presume that the Master Plan Update is referring to the airport design standards contained in the latest edition of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.13A, Airport Design. As the term implies, adoption and implementation of this alternative will require FAA formal approval of a Modification of Standards ("MOS") applicable to certain airfield design standards. Such modifications are also contemplated by the DEIR, which notes with respect to the separation normally required between runways and taxiways: "Despite not achieving the full 400-foot runway-taxiway separation distance, the FAA could potentially approve the layout if the County formally requests a Modification to Standard to the FAA." (Section S.5.4 [D-III Modified Standards Alternative] [p. S-5]). While historically the FAA was fairly liberal in granting an MOS, current FAA policy does not routinely allow an MOS except in extraordinary circumstances. It is important that the County disclose: (a) the process involved in seeking such approvals; (b) why the County believes that the FAA will approve an MOS; (c) what modifications to FAA standards will be sought; ( d) what operational or land use conditions are likely to be imposed in connection with any MOS approval; and (e) how failure to secure an MOS approval will affect the elements of the Master Plan Update. Of course, if the County has already secured informal or conditional approval of an MOS as contemplated in the Master Plan Update, that approval should be explained. 4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 6 of 87 C. Runway Protection Zones ("RPZ") The City has the following comments and questions regarding the ways in which the , RPZs are addressed in the Master Plan Update. 1. In connection with most Master Plan Update approvals (and undoubtedly in connection with approval of an MOS), the FAA will seek to have the County indicate whether it has plans for bringing its safety area geometry into compliance with Airport Design. The Master Plan Update appropriately addresses compliance with requirements for the Runway Safety Area and other runway safety zones such as the Object Free Area and Building Restriction Line. However, the airport does not presently have FAA-compliant Runway Protection Zones ("RPZs") and it appears that the Master Plan Update does not contemplate property acquisitions that would be necessary to achieve compliance. In the interest of transparency, and to educate those portions of the public who are not intimately familiar with Airport Design or with the FAA policy on use of real property within the RPZs (https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning capacity/media/interimLandU seRPZGuidance.pdf ), we request that the Master Plan Update explain (a) the FAA policies on permissible land uses within the RP Zs; (b) whether the County intends to seek to have restrictions imposed on land use consistent with FAA policies by the jurisdiction with land use regulatory authority over each such parcel; ( c) whether the County will seek to acquire property within the RP Zs, if practical; and (d) what, if any, operational changes or restrictions will be imposed in light of the non- compliant RP Zs. The City is especially interested in whether the FAA is likely to seek from the City land use restrictions on non-County-owned property within the RPZs and what such restrictions are planned to be. 2. As noted above, the City wishes to know whether the County intends to acquire additional property within the RPZs. Section 5.7.6 (Preferred Airfield Alternative) provides that "It is also recommended that the Airport pursue land acquisition for any and all existing and ultimate RPZs although this action may not be determined as practical [ see discussion above]. At a minimum, the Airport should demonstrate that it is taking all steps possible to protect land uses within existing and ultimate RPZs. These actions should not fall under the definition of 'expansion' identified in CUP-172 as the size of the RPZs represent existing conditions." (p. 5-42 -5-43). The acquisition of RPZ land is also recommended in the DEIR (see, for example, DEIR Section 2.3.2.3 [Airport Hazards], noting that "land within RPZs should be secured at the earliest opportunity" [p. 2-65] and Section S.1.2 [Project's Component Parts], noting that "lands within these areas would be sought over time for property interest as opportunities arise." [p. S-3]) In contrast to these statements, the County explains elsewhere in the Master Plan Update that it has intentionally abstained from acquiring such land. Section 5.4.2.1 (General Environmental and Land Use Constraints) states that "The County in developing the Master Plan has voluntarily avoided any property acquisition to support the expansion of airport facilities beyond current property boundaries." (p. 5-6). Section 5.7.1.2 (Constraints Regarding Airfield Alternative 2) further notes that "Expansion of Airport would trigger vote of Citizens of Carlsbad in accordance with Section 21.53.015 of the City's Municipal Code due to the need to acquire 5 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 7 of 87 additional land to accommodate airport facilities and City of Carlsbad to amend CUP-172." (p. 5-27) Please address how the land acquisition recommended in Section 5.7.6 of the Master Plan Update may affect the need for additional approvals from the City or the County. In particular, as noted in the previous Comment section, if the County ( or the FAA) seeks land use changes on non-County-owned property, the Master Plan Update should indicate what such proposed changes are and the process that the County proposes to use to seek such changes. 3. Please address how the Proposed Project will impact the size and location of the current RPZ areas. Section 5.7.6 (Preferred Airfield Alternative) of the Master Plan Update provides that "the size of the RP Zs represent existing conditions." (p. 5-42). The Master Plan Update does not describe an increase in the size of the RPZs in its text. However, a comparison of Exhibit 2.1 (Existing Airfield Facilities) (p. 2-2) and Exhibit 5.10 (Phased Development Exhibit) (p. 5-54) shows that the western RPZ appears significantly longer, and the eastern RPZ appears significantly smaller, in the future development scenario. We understand these changes are needed in connection with the proposed redesignation of the airport as a D-III category airport. Please clarify if and how the RPZ areas are planned to change under the Master Plan Update, including any consequences this may have with regard to CUP 172 and CUP 172(B). This also should be done to ensure that the Master Plan Update is consistent with the DEIR, which discusses that the RPZs will shift in location in connection with relocating the runway north and extending its eastern end (see DEIR Section 2.3.2.3 [Airport Hazards] [p. 2- 65]). D. Change in Airport Reference Code The Master Plan Update explains the FAA policies governing changes in the airport reference code ( as set forth in Airport Design) that are necessitated by the largest commonly used aircraft at the airport. This explanation is useful but begs the question that the public needs to understand: if at least 500 D-II aircraft have been using this airport notwithstanding its designation as a B-II airport, have all of these operations (and other operations by aircraft larger or faster than B-II aircraft) been operating unsafely at this airport? In other words, would it be unsafe for the airport to continue to accommodate aircraft larger and faster than B-II aircraft until such time as the County is able to make the safety improvements contemplated in the Master Plan Update? These questions are important because it is not immediately clear to the non- expert public whether the proposed improvements are designed to remedy an unsafe condition at the airport or, more optionally, designed to enhance airport safety for the benefit of users and the general public. In particular, the Master Plan Update should clearly explain whether, in the absence of the proposed airfield improvements, aircraft in categories above B-II would either discontinue to use the airport altogether or would decrease their usage for safety reasons. The County appears to take the position in the Master Plan Update that the airfield improvements are merely designed to accommodate aircraft that are already using the airport, albeit with a compromised margin of safety. If so, the Master Plan Update also needs to explain (a) whether the enhancement of the airport to comply with D-III standards (with a MOS) would create an inducement for even larger aircraft, i.e. aircraft that are faster and larger than D-III, to use the airport or whether there are other physical characteristics, e.g., runway length or 6 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 8 of 87 pavement weight-bearing capacity, that would prevent such growth; and (b) whether the existing fleet mix would change once the airport becomes officially able to accommodate larger aircraft. E. Distinguishing Safety and Business Benefits of a Runway Extension The Master Plan Update explains that a longer runway would allow larger aircraft to take off with full fuel loads, as certain aircraft that currently utilize the airport are only able to take off with reduced fuel loads. The purpose of extending the runway is also explained as a way of enhancing safety (see, for example, pages ES-7 and ES-8); however the specific safety benefits of the runway extension (as opposed to the construction of Engineered Material Arresting Systems) are not described. This is also applicable to the DEIR (see, for example, DEIR Section 1.1.2 [Meet Runway Length], stating that "A longer runway would enhance safety and operational capabilities of the existing and future fleet of aircraft at the airport .... " [p. 1-4]) It is important for both the Master Plan Update and the DEIR to clearly distinguish between the safety mandates and rationale for the runway extension and the business or user- enhancement benefits. While a longer Takeoff Run Available ("TORA") and other runway geometries certainly could enhance the maximum stage length of departing flights, the Master Plan Update does not explain these benefits, quantify the benefit to the County or the users, or, most importantly, explain whether such benefits are the driving force or only a minor factor in seeking a runway extension. It is especially important for the Master Plan Update to forecast the number of operations that would be affected by the longer runway, in particular the number of operations that would not occur but for the runway extension and how many operations would exist with or without the runway extension but be able to take advantage of the longer stage length available because of the longer runway takeoff distance available. It appears that the longer runway will principally provide business benefits by making the airport more attractive for long-stage-length operations. The Master Plan Update, however, also asserts that there are safety imperatives driving the runway extension but those safety benefits are neither disclosed nor explained. Beyond the obvious statement that a longer runway is almost always safer, the Master Plan Update should address the safety benefits of the proposed runway extension, and explain where there is a safety mandate from the FAA ( or requirement under applicable Airport Design standards) that is driving the runway extension. F. NEPA Documentation for FAA Approvals Neither the Master Plan Update nor the DEIR adequately explains the NEPA process that will be used to secure necessary FAA approvals for Master Plan Update components. While the FAA allows airport sponsors to prepare joint CEQA and NEPA documents, the County has not chosen this path. It is important, therefore, to disclose the County's strategy for NEPA documentation because that strategy will fundamentally affect the level and depth of public participation in the FAA approval process. For example, the County should disclose the following: (1) is the County going to seek conditional FAA approval of the Airport Layout Plan as envisioned in the Master Plan Update or will it seek approval of each component of the Master Plan Update as it becomes ripe for decision; (2) will the County request that the FAA prepare NEPA documentation on the entire Master Plan Update or only on specific project components once timing and financing become clearer for that component; and (3) does the 7 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 9 of 87 County contemplate that some or all of the Master Plan Update components will require a federal EIS prior to FAA approval or will an Environmental Assessment or even a Categorical Exclusion (or documented Categorical Exclusion) be sought under FAA Order 5050.lB? The answers to these key questions will help the public understand whether the review ofthis DEIR and Master Plan Update will be only the initial opportunity for public participation or whether it is the only such opportunity. G. General Readability The Master Plan Update should be revised to ensure that all section, exhibit and table references are correct in the text of the document, and that conflicting, inconsistent, or unsubstantiated statements are addressed ( certain of these statements are identified in later comments below). Please ensure that tables and exhibits include proper labelling and numbers, for example: Exhibits 2.13 and 2.14 are mislabeled (Exhibit 2.13 depicts General Plan planned land uses but is labelled "Airport Area Existing Land Use", while Exhibit 2.14 appears to depict existing land uses and is labelled "Airport Area Future Land Use") (pp. 2-32 and 2-34); Exhibit 5.2 (Airfield Alternative 1) (p. 5-24) includes a reference to the "Airport Property Line" in the legend, but the line does not appear to be shown on the actual exhibit; and Table 6.7 (Airport Capital Improvement Plan) (p. 6-7) includes numerous arithmetical errors that render it difficult to understand. Addressing these issues will greatly improve the readability of the Master Plan Update. 8 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 10 of 87 II. SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON MASTER PLAN UPDATE The following comments address issues that are particular to specific sections of the Master Plan Update. A. Section 2 -Inventory of Existing Conditions 1. Section 2.10.5 (Policy F-44 "Development of McClellan- Palomar Airport") (p. 2-44) Section 2.10.5 describes the purpose and content of County Policy F-44, and notes that "The new McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan lays out a new comprehensive 20-year plan for development of the Airport, making Board Policy F-44 Development of McClellan-Palomar Airport duplicative .... [F]ollowing adoption of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan the Board of Supervisors may determine Board Policy F-44 is no longer needed and repeal it." (p. 2-44) Of potential significance is the fact that Board Policy F-44 limits scheduled commuter airline operations to 70-seat aircraft, while the Master Plan Update does not. Please consider whether the repeal of Board Policy F-44 is an action that would need to be evaluated in the DEIR. The DEIR notes the existence of Board Policy F-44 (p. 3-86) but includes no discussion of whether the Master Plan Update conflicts with Board Policy F-44, nor what the considerations may be in repealing Board Policy F-44. B. Section 3 -Aviation Activity Forecast 1. Section 3.2 (Aviation Activity Forecast-Introduction) (p. 3-1) The Master Plan Update provides in Section 3.2 that "Since the 'planning-level' scenario is beyond the specific tolerance for future projections, submitted forecasts of aviation activity have not been approved by FAA in their entirety." (p. 3-2) Section 3.2 further references a memorandum issued by the FAA Los Angeles District Office on October 10, 2017, stating that "the FAA had no objections if the County chose to base local land use planning decisions on the 'planning-level' forecast, however, any related mitigation measure would not be eligible for Airport Improvement Program funding." Please address how the lack of: ( 1) FAA approval of submitted forecasts; and (2) Airport Improvement Program ("AIP") funding for mitigation measures related to 'planning-level' forecasts, might impact the feasibility of the Proposed Project. The statement in the Master Plan Update that the FAA Los Angeles District Office has no objections to use of Planning Activity Levels ("PALs") in lieu of specific data does not address the question of whether the FAA has formally approved the use of any forecast other than the Terminal Area Forecast ("TAF"). Both the proposed forecast in the Master Plan Update and the regional forecast differ substantially from the latest T AF, so the appropriate Airport District Office approval letter should be referenced in, and attached to, the Master Plan Update. 9 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 11 of 87 Because the proposed forecast, especially with respect to commercial passenger enplanements, differs so dramatically from the FAA T AF, it is incumbent on the County to explain why its forecast passenger enplanement level is so high. The Master Plan Update explains why the FAA passenger enplanement forecast is too low, but it does not include any data to substantiate the growth that the County projects. In particular, if the County has information from existing or proposed new commercial operators, the Master Plan Update should disclose that information. Finally, the availability of commercial service at small regional airports has seen a resurgence in the last few years for myriad economic reasons. In some regions, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and Los Angeles, the growth of commercial passenger service has been led by the increased inconvenience oflarge hub airports ( e.g., SFO, SEA, LAX, respectively) and regional surface traffic congestion. In other places, such as Tampa Bay and the Boston metropolitan area, the relative cost of operating at the large hub and the growth of ultra- low-cost carriers ( e.g., Allegiant and Spirit) have been the driving factors. And at still others, growth has been driven by a single new innovative carrier such as Rise, SurfAir, Blade and other start-ups operating very small aircraft outside the regulatory ambit of the Transportation Security Administration. The Master Plan Update forecast should place the projected enormous growth in commercial passenger enplanements at the airport in this context. In particular, does the County contemplate that congestion at San Diego International Airport ("SAN"), surface travel times to SAN, or the growth of startups like CalJet to be the driving force(s) for growth at the airport? Are there other startups whom the County believes may be interested in establishing service at the airport? What are the opportunities or impediments to an increase in commercial service? Given that service with large transport category aircraft such as the A320 or B737 is likely, does the County expect that the introduction of the new, efficient C-series regional passenger aircraft from Bombardier (https :// commercialaircraft. born hardier. corn/ en/ cseries.html) and similar aircraft from Dornier (https://www.fairchild-dornier.com/3.html) will have a significant impact on operations at the airport? These are all questions that the public has been asking and should be addressed in the Master Plan Update. 2. Section 3.2 (Aviation Activity Forecast-Introduction) (p. 3-1) CEQA Guidelines§ 15144 states that "While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." To that end, please provide a more comprehensive discussion of whether the planned improvements will induce demand at the airport, with a particular focus on whether: (1) an extended runway would attract additional air carriers traveling longer distances; and (2) the County expects that air cargo operations would be introduced to the airport, given the growth of e-commerce and increased demand for faster, more efficient delivery services. The issue of induced demand is especially important for this Master Plan Update. For many airports, capital improvements are designed primarily to accommodate existing or reasonably foreseeable future demand caused by extrinsic forces ( e.g., regional growth, increase in aircraft movements generally, etc.) This Master Plan Update appears to contemplate induced demand by: (a) increasing the design category of the airport from B-II to D-III; (b) increasing runway length; and ( c) making the commercial passenger facilities more attractive to air carriers. 10 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 12 of 87 The Master Plan Update and the DEIR should disaggregate the forecast to show the portion of the increase that is attributable to extrinsic economic factors and the portion of the increase that is induced, i.e., attributable to improvements in airport facilities. C. Section 5 -Alternative Analysis 1. Section 5.4.2.2. (Existing Conditions -Environmental Factors -Air Quality) (p. 5-6) Section 5.4.2.2 explains that a runway extension would allow for aircraft to take off from the airport without having to make a second fuel stop at a nearby airport, noting that "With the runway improvements, the efficiency or "green benefits" of the project would help to offset overall fuel usage and, hence, greenhouse gas and other air quality emissions." (p. 5-7) This assertion is made without reference to any supporting evidence. Please explain the basis for this assertion. Please also provide context for this assertion by explaining how many flights this change is anticipated to impact. We understand from Airports Director Peter Drinkwater that, to the best of his knowledge, there is currently only one flight per week that needs to make a second fuel stop at a nearby airport (as stated at the February 13, 2018 public workshop hosted by the County). 2. Section 5.4.2.12 (Existing Conditions -Light Emissions and Visual Effects) (p. 5-18) Section 5.4.2.12 notes that the proposed improvements "include potential runway and taxiway extensions that would alter existing slopes and likely require a retention wall. The City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual (February 2016) identifies policies and requirements that correspond with Community Theme Corridors. Due to the existing landfill and methane collection system, and steep slopes associated with a potential retention wall, adherence to these policies and requirements may be challenging, however, they should be followed to the extent possible." The Master Plan Update also refers to a potential retaining wall at the west end of the runway. (p. 5-19) Please provide greater detail regarding the location, length and height of both of these retention walls. Section 5.7.3 (Airfield Alternative 4 -D-III-On Property) explains that the taxiway extension "is proposed over an area that has an approximate drop-off of 50 feet from the airfield," which would seem to indicate that the first described retaining wall also would need to be as much as 50 feet in height. (p. 5-33) Furthermore, it is unclear from the above description at what point in the development process the County would seek to incorporate the screening and landscaping measures outlined in the Landscape Manual, or how these measures would be implemented. Please provide additional information regarding these measures. In addition to Carlsbad Landscape Manual policies and requirements, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.95 (Hillside Development Regulations) also addresses development affecting hillsides. One of the purposes of this chapter is to "preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic 11 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 13 of 87 qualities of nature hillsides and manufactured slopes by designing projects which relate to the slope of the land, minimizing the amount of project grading, and incorporating contour grading into manufactured slopes which are located in highly visible public locations." (Section 21.95.0IO(B)) Please assess the applicability of these Hillside Development Regulations to the project and state whether the County intends to adhere to these provisions as well as to those of the Landscape Manual. Additionally, the City requests that it be able to review, comment on and approve the plans for hillside/slope grading, the retaining walls, and the screening thereof. Additional comments regarding the DEIR's discussion of the retaining walls are provided below, in DEIR Comment II.B.3 of this letter. 3. Section 5.7.7.2 (Interim Airfield Alternative --Constraints) (p. 5-44) Section 5. 7. 7.2 notes that the Interim Airfield Alternative may not be eligible for FAA AIP funding, and that "a significant portion of the Preferred Airfield Alternative presented in Section 5.7.51 may not be eligible for FAA or State grants." (p. 5-44) However, Table 6.7 (ACIP) includes such potential funding, with a note in Section 6.2 (ACIP) acknowledging that securing funding from the FAA for some of these components "may be challenging." (p. 6-6) Please provide a more detailed description of how project costs are anticipated to be met if FAA funding cannot be secured for certain components. Tables 6.4 (Operating Revenues), 6.5 (Operating Expenses), and 6.6 (Operating Revenues and Expenses) (all p. 6-5) also appear to show operating losses without any current debt service. This would seem to indicate that airport revenues cannot support the cost of project components without FAA funding. 4. Exhibit 5.10 (Phased Development Exhibit) (p. 5-54) Exhibit 5 .10 indicates an area labeled "Reserved for Future GA Parking". If parking were constructed in this location, a retaining wall almost certainly would be required. However, this is not discussed in the Master Plan Update. Please ensure that the Master Plan Update explicitly states where retaining walls would be needed in connection with the project improvements, including labeling the location of such retaining walls in this exhibit. 5. Table 5.1 (Preferred Development Strategy by Phase) (p. 5-53) Aesthetic projects, such as retaining walls and associated landscaping costs, are not included in Table 5.1, which is described as listing "the various recommended improvement projects and development programs by phase. These listed projects form the basis of the Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP)." (p. 5-52) Please update this table to include aesthetic improvements as a component of the ACIP. 1 Please note that the reference to Section 5.7.5 on p. 5-44 of the Master Plan Update is incorrect, as the Preferred Airfield Alternative is discussed in Section 5.7.6. 12 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 14 of 87 We also note that cost estimates for the area reserved for General Aviation parking and for other improvements are noted as "TBD." This information is needed to more fully understand the costs associated with the ACIP. Please include such cost estimates in the final Master Plan Update. D. Section 6 -Airport Capital Improvement Plan 1. Table 6. 7 (ACIP) (p. 6-7) Table 6. 7 displays the ACIP, based on Exhibit 5 .10, and outlines various capital expenditures. As with Table 5 .1, aesthetic improvements, particularly retaining walls and corresponding landscaping, need to be included in the table as separate project components with their own phasing and budget line items. The City has for many years emphasized the need for the County to undertake aesthetic improvements to the airport perimeter; as the Proposed Project is now anticipated to have a further significant impact on visual resources, mitigation is required by the DEIR, and must be funded accordingly. Near-term slope improvement projects should be contemplated as part of the overall program, rather than solely as part of mitigation, as they will be needed in advance of the retaining walls. [COMMENTS TO THE DEIR BEGIN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 13 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 15 of 87 DRAFT EIR COMMENTS Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined below have the meanings set forth in the DEIR. References to CEQA Guidelines refer to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 -15387. I. COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE DEIR The following comments address issues that apply to multiple sections of the DEIR. A. Clarification of Proposed Project Components CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires consideration and discussion of alternatives to the Proposed Project, providing that "The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project." To that end, please provide a comprehensive outline of the components of the Proposed Project, so that the Proposed Project may more easily be compared with the alternatives considered. Chapter 4 of the DEIR compares the Proposed Project to the project alternatives with respect to both project objectives and potential impacts. These elements are discussed in the text of the chapter and in Tables 4-1 (Comparison of Project Alternatives to Project Objectives) (p. 4-17) and 4-2 (Comparison of Project Alternatives to Significant Proposed Project Impacts) (p. 4-19), respectively. However, this chapter does not include a clear description of the components of the Proposed Project as compared to the components of the project alternatives. Without such a description, it is very difficult to distinguish how the Proposed Project varies from the D-III Modified Standards Alternative. The difficulty in comparing the project alternatives is exacerbated by the fact that the Proposed Project is referred to in the Master Plan Update as the 'D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative.' It is very easy for the reader to confuse the 'D-III Modified Standards Compliance Alternative' (selected as the Proposed Project) with the 'D-III Modified Standards Alternative' (which was not selected). A clear description of the Proposed Project components, and a table comparing these components with those of the project alternatives, would help the reader to distinguish the Proposed Project from the other options. B. Definition of Airport Property As discussed above with respect to the Master Plan Update, it is unclear from the definition of "Airport" what property is considered to be within the airport boundaries. Please distinguish between the boundary of County-owned airport property and the boundary of airport operations, and ensure that these definitions and boundaries are used consistently throughout the DEIR. C. Study Area Boundaries CEQA Guidelines§ 15124(a) requires that "the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed map." The DEIR includes a map indicating the project Study Area (Figure 1-2 [Vicinity Map] [p. 1-23]) but this map does not include the 14 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 16 of 87 Eastern Parcel, even though the eastern RPZ overlaps with this area (see Figure 1-5 [Conceptual Development Phases] [p. 1-29]). Please explain why the RPZ is not included in the Study Area. Additionally, it appears that the relocation of a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights ("MALSR") is being contemplated outside of the Study Area, in the Eastern Parcel. Section 1.3 (Project Location) states that "the Proposed Project site does not include the vacant County-owned parcel located at the northeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. All improvements are proposed on the existing airport use areas northwest of the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection." (p. 1-11) This assertion is also made in Section 3 .1. 7 .1 (Land Use and Planning -Existing Conditions) (p. 3-81) and elsewhere in the DEIR. However, Fig. 1-3 (Runway Safety Areas and Runway Object Free Areas) (p. 1-25) of the DEIR appears to show MALSR being present in the Eastern Parcel, and Section 1.2.1.1 (Near-term Projects) further states that the "200-foot extension would also require the relocation of the MALSR located east of the runway .... The additional lighting system would be located on County-owned land that is currently vacant. A portion of this land is designated as Open Space." (p. 1-7) We understand that the relocation of MAL SR is considered a federal action as "The FAA is the owner and responsible agency for this lighting system." (Section 1.2.1.1 [Intermediate-,: term Projects] [p. 1-8]) However, as the land impacted by the relocation is County-owned, analysis of this action still is required. Such an analysis is also relevant because it will inform federal agencies of potential impacts of the Proposed Project (see Section 1.5 [Intended Uses of the EIR] [p. 1-14]). As such, please expand the Study Area boundaries to include the RPZ and MALSR. Please also evaluate the potential environmental impacts of relocating the MALSR. D. NEPA Documentation for FAA Approvals Neither the Master Plan Update nor the DEIR adequately explains the NEPA process that will be used to secure necessary FAA approvals for Master Plan Update components. Please refer to Master. Plan Update Comment I.F, above, for the City's questions with respect to the County's strategy for NEPA documentation. 15 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 17 of 87 II. COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR SECTIONS OF THE DEIR The following comments are particular to specific sections of the DEIR. A. Chapter 1 (Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting) 1. Inclusion of Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements in Project Description CEQA Guidelines§ 15124(d)(l)(C) states that the EIR Project Description must contain "A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies. To the fullest extent possible, the lead agency should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements." While the DEIR considers related environmental review and consultation requirements in its analysis of the Proposed Project's impacts, these requirements do not appear to be outlined in the Project Description. Please add such a section to the DEIR Project Description. 2. Section 1.1.2 (Meet Runway Length/Width Requirements) (p. 1-4) Section 1.1.2 notes that a "longer runway ... is not defined or required by FAA Design Standards for a D-III airfield." (p. 1-4) Please confirm if this is why the runway extension is not eligible for FAA AIP funding; if not the cause, please explain what is. 3. Section 1.2.1.3 (Long-term Projects (13-20 years)) (p. 1-8) This Section notes that in connection with the MALSR relocation ( discussed above in DEIR Comment LC of this letter) "Minor trenching to connect electrical utilities to the new locations of the navigational aids would be necessary." (p. 1-9) We note that in addition to the minor trenching mentioned, MALSR relocation also would require foundations for relocated light structures as well as a maintenance path or road. Please ensure that the DEIR describes all physical improvements required in connection with the MALSR relocation. 4. Section 1.3 (Project Location) (p. 1-11) Section 1.3 provides that "The City of Carlsbad maintains land use authority outside of the boundaries of the County-owned land" (p. 1-11) and Section 2.1.1 (Existing Conditions) similarly notes that "The airport is located within the municipal limits of the City of Carlsbad, but is not subject to its land use authority." (p. 2-5) However, the distinction between the City and County's land use authority is not simply demarcated by the boundary of County-owned property. The City maintains land use authority for private development on County-owned airport land and is responsible for issuing building permits for such non-public use structures (see Section 3.1.6.1 [Existing Conditions], explaining that" ... future private development at the Airport is subject to discretionary review by the City" [p. 3-69], as well as DEIR Comment II.C.6, below). Airport improvements also are subject to CUP 172 and CUP 172(B), issued by the City. As such, this section should more thoroughly address the respective land use authority of the City and the County in the DEIR. Additionally, Section 2.1.1 states that "because the Airport is located within the City of Carlsbad's municipal limits, the County's Zoning Ordinance does not apply to the Proposed 16 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 18 of 87 Project." (p. 2-3) When read together with the statement in Section 1.3, this language implies that there are no land use regulations applicable to the airport. Please clarify this statement. 5. Section 1.4.3 (Site Characteristics) (p. 1-12) In keeping with DEIR Comment LC, above, regarding the inclusion of the MALSR in the Study Area boundaries, please include a description of the Eastern Parcel and existing navigational aids in this description of airport site characteristics, rather than in the preceding section on surrounding land uses. 6. Section 1.8 (List of Past, Present, and Reasonably Anticipated Future Projects in the Project Area) (p. 1-15) Section 1.8 notes that "City of Carlsbad records were reviewed for development project environmental documents within two miles of the airport for potential cumulative environmental impacts ... ", yet the DEIR provides no explanation for why a two-mile radius was chosen to define the area within which cumulative impacts would be evaluated. (p. 1-15) Please explain why a two-mile radius was chosen, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines§ 15130(b)(3), which requires that a cumulative impacts analysis" ... define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used." 7. Section 1.9.2 (Promotion of Economic Growth) (p. 1-17) Section 1.9.2 provides that "Based on CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project includes improvements to an existing airport that would not significantly induce economic or population growth ... " (p. 1-17) However, the 2013 Feasibility Study for Potential Improvements to McClellan-Palomar Airport Runway, prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., identifies economic growth resulting from the proposed runway extension. Please discuss the economic growth findings of this study, or explain why such findings are not applicable to the DEIR review. 8. Table 1-3 (Matrix of Project Approvals) (p. 1-19) The table notes that the FAA is the agency responsible for approving the Airport Layout Plan. Please also add that the FAA is responsible for the relocation of the MALSR, if this is correct. 9. Table 1-4 (Cumulative Projects List) (p. 1-19) and Figure 1-7 (Cumulative Projects Map) (p. 1-33) In July 2017, the City provided the County with a list of projects to include in the evaluation of cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project. It appears that a number of these projects were omitted from the DEIR analysis. Omitted projects include the Legoland Hotel, Westin Hotel (including timeshares), and the International Floral Trade Center, among others. Please update the evaluation of cumulative impacts to include the projects provided in this list, or explain why these projects were omitted from the analysis. This comment is also applicable to the near-term cumulative projects listed in Traffic Study Table 9-1, included in Appendix E. A number of projects identified by the City for the 17 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 19 of 87 cumulative impacts noise analysis were not included in the study, and the reason for their omission is unclear. B. Chapter 2 Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project 1. Section 2.1.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources -Existing Conditions) (p. 2-1) Section 2.1.1 provides that "The Airport's primary viewers are motorists along Palomar Airport Road. These viewers' exposure to visual changes from a project are temporary and transient, lasting only as long as they are traveling on Palomar Airport Road adjacent to the Airport." (p. 2-2) This characterization does not account for the fact that many of the same commuters drive along this route daily, resulting in viewers' repeated exposure to airport projects, and thereby downplays the significance of this exposure. Please update this description to more accurately characterize viewer exposure. 2. Section 2.1.1 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources -Existing Conditions) (p. 2-1) Section 2.1.1 describes the various components of the regulatory framework that control the aesthetics and visual resources impacted by the Proposed Project (p. 2-3). Please update this list to include the Carlsbad Landscape Manual, which establishes a structure for designing and maintaining landscapes in new construction and renovated landscapes, as well as Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.95 (Hillside Development Regulations), which regulates development affecting hillsides and steep slopes. 3. Section 2.1.2.1 (Visual Character and Visual Quality - Analysis) (p. 2-5) Section 2.1.2.1 explains that the Proposed Project "would introduce a retaining wall along the southern slope of the Airport along Palomar Airport Road (near its intersection with El Camino Real) .... Because this portion of the Airport currently consists of a natural slope, introduction of this retaining wall would contrast with the existing visual character and quality of the site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in significant impact related to visual character and visual quality." (p. 2-6) The City has the following comments and questions regarding the retaining wall and the corresponding landscaping needed to screen it. a) Please better identify the specific height and location of this wall, as it is not indicated in Figure 1-5, Phased Development Plan (p. 1-29), nor anywhere else that we could find. A retaining wall would need to be constructed on the western end of the runway, in addition to the southern slope of the airport, but is not shown, either. Please provide this information on a map. b) Taxiway A would be extended in two phases: a 200-foot near-term extension, and then a 600-foot long-term relocation/extension. Please discuss whether the retaining wall would similarly be constructed in two phases to accommodate both taxiway 18 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 20 of 87 extensions. Also, the Taxiway A extension(s) appears to conflict with the existing vehicle service road at the southeast end of the airport. How would the vehicle service road be modified, and what effect would it have on the extent of the future retaining wall? Please confirm that no retaining wall would be necessary along El Camino Real to accommodate the future runway extension, EMAS, vehicle service road and runway lighting. c) The description of the retaining wall provides that "the County will incorporate aesthetic measures from the City of Carlsbad, including the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines as discussed in Section 2.1.2.1 (see Section 2.1.2.4 [Consistency with Adopted Goals, Policies, and Ordinances] [p. 2-1 O]). Explicit reference also should be made to adhering to the Carlsbad Landscape Manual. d) Section 2.1.2.1 discusses the existing slopes along Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, and explains that several factors prevent implementation and landscaping of this area, the primary reason being that the eastern slope "functions as the protective cap (cover) for the inactive landfill underlying portions of the Airport boundary." (p. 2-6) The City recognizes that these factors limit the potential landscaping and screening options, however the City does not believe that they eliminate all viable options. Please consider the following landscaping measures: i. Utilize the slope areas outside of the landfill footprint, as it appears there are fairly wide, flat areas at the base of the slope along Palomar Road and more narrow areas on El Camino Real that are outside of the landfill footprint. Appropriate landscaping, including trees and larger screen shrubs, could be installed in these areas to provide screen/softening of the slopes beyond, and to provide a more desirable view corridor on these major streets. 11. Install plantable walls if the height of the retaining wall becomes excessive. m. As permanent pressurized irrigations lines are not permitted on the landfill' s surface, including the slopes ( see p. 2-7), install pressurized mainlines at the base of the slopes in the public right-of-way outside of the landfill footprint. Install non-pressurized irrigation lateral lines above-grade up the slopes to allow for proper germination and the establishment of plantings. Use large radius rotors to minimize the number of lateral lines needed, thus reducing removal and replacement costs during maintenance grading operations. If irrigation can be added, explore an appropriate native seed mix that could establish in the clay cap or be added to a shallow layer of more conducive soil. iv. As an alternative to permanent pressurized irrigation lines, consider master valves/check valves and leak detectors to avoid damage. These elements could also be installed at the bottom of the slopes. v. The native seed mix that is being used to treat the slopes has not been performing well, and it is unclear if this is due to the clay soil being devoid of nutrients and/or a lack of irrigation, but most likely it is due to a combination of both factors. If allowable, 19 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 21 of 87 providing a shallow layer of more appropriate soil over the clay cap would be more conducive to plant growth. e) Section 2.1.2.1 notes that "State Guidance requires the County Landfill Management Unit to properly maintain the slope, often by grading." (p. 2-7) Please explain why state guidance requires grading and whether installation of a retaining wall would eliminate the need for such periodic regrading. f) We understand that the protective cap over the landfill is "a non- permeable layer consisting of three feet of clay rich soils that are designed to exclude water infiltration." (p. 2-7) As the cap is impermeable, please explain the concern for irrigation, even of shallow-rooted groundcover. g) The City seeks a commitment from the County to allow the City to review, comment on, and approve the landscaping and screening of the retaining wall, as no such commitment is currently outlined in the DEIR. Section 2.1.4 (Mitigation Measures) provides that "The future retaining wall would be designed in consideration of the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines to the degree feasible since any modification of the inactive landfill slopes would require coordination and oversight by applicable State and local agencies." (p. 2-11) While the City recognizes that there are certain limitations to the way in which the retaining wall may be landscaped and screened, the City must have an opportunity to review and provide oversight of the proposed landscaping measures. 4. Section 2.1.2.1 (Visual Character and Visual Quality - Analysis) (p. 2-5) While Section 2.1.2.1 discusses the need for a retaining wall along the southern slope of the airport along Palomar Airport Road, the DEIR does not discuss the need for a retaining wall associated with future GA parking, although one would almost certainly be required. The only reference to such a retaining wall appears in Section 4.2.2.1 (Comparison of the Effects of the No Project Alternative to the Proposed Project-Aesthetics), which notes that "The No Project Alternative would not result in any airport improvements identified under the Proposed Project, such as extension of Taxiway A or future general aviation parking that would necessitate a retaining wall visible along Palomar Airport Road." (p. 4-3) Please revise the Visual Character and Visual Quality Analysis to include the potential for a retaining wall in this location, and discuss relevant measures to mitigate the visual impact of such a wall. Please note that the comments provided above with respect to the runway/taxiway retaining wall(s) also apply to a retaining wall in this location, apart from the slope-specific comments provided. The City also requests that it be able to approve the hillside/slope grading, landscaping, and screening of a retaining wall as needed in connection with GA parking. 5. Section 2.1.2.1 (Visual Character and Visual Quality - Analysis) (p. 2-5) Please clarify whether the proposed relocation of MALSR has been included in the consideration of light and glare impacts discussed in Section 2.1.2.1. This Section provides that 20 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 22 of 87 the "Airport would be required to comply with applicable regulations as set forth in the County Light Pollution Code and the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP, as well as the FAA to ensure that light and glare would not result in safety hazards. As a result, any change in lighting with the Proposed Project would be less than significant." (p. 2-7) As the MALSR has not been included within the Study Area boundaries set forth in the DEIR, it is unclear whether this conclusion also applies to the proposed MALSR relocation. 6. Section 2.2 (Biological Resources) (p. 2-17) The following comments apply to the entirety of Section 2.2 and should be addressed, as applicable in the setting, analysis, and mitigation portions of this Section. a) Section 2.2 provides that "Biological resources data presented in this section include information obtained through a search of sensitive species and habitats databases for sensitive species known to occur within two miles of the project site." (p. 2-17) Please explain why two miles was determined to be the appropriate radius for obtaining information regarding sensitive species surrounding the airport. b) As previously discussed in this letter, the DEIR states that the Master Plan Update does not propose impacts to the Eastern Parcel. We believe this statement is somewhat misleading, as the MALSR will need to be relocated to accommodate the runway shift. This relocation will likely require relocation of the MALSR into the preserve area or the Pre- Approved Mitigation Area ("PAMA"), which will likely result in habitat loss. Please analyze the movement of the MALSR into the preserve area or the PAMA and the associated impacts. (Please also see DEIR Comment II.C.l below, questioning whether the relocation ofMALSR may impact land subject to a conservation easement.) Also, please analyze the impacts of the relocation ofMALSR on the requirements set forth in the letter dated March 7, 2011 to Cynthia Curtis from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (attached to Appendix B, Biological Resources Technical Report, at page 165). c) The DEIR states that the airport "is subject to a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP; C&S 2015) as approved by the FAA in 2016 .... Components of the WHMP include wildlife control actions such as habitat management, hazing, and harassment. The FAA requires a zero-tolerance for hazardous wildlife on the airfield within the framework of federal and state regulations." (p. 2-17) The DEIR also correctly notes in Section 2.2.1.1 that, "Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a 'take' under the [Federal Endangered Species Act] FESA. Section 9(a) of the FESA defines "take" as 'to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.' 'Harm' and 'harass' are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species' behavioral patterns." (p. 2-18) Please address how the FESA requirements affect the need to prevent wildlife from entering airport property and whether such activities would be considered "take" under the FESA. Also, please disclose what environmental assessment, if any, was conducted in connection with the 2016 approval of the WHMP. d) This Section does not fully analyze the cumulative impacts of the Master Plan Update on the Diegan coastal sage scrub. Please note that the 4( d) rule limits cumulative 21 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 23 of 87 impacts to the coastal sage scrub of 5% of coastal sage scrub in the County. Please discuss these limits and evaluate whether the cumulative takes of the coastal sage scrub for the period of the Master Plan will be able to stay within these limits. If not, please provide additional mitigation to address impacts to the coastal sage scrub. e) The DEIR does not address requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA"). Please note that a nesting gnatcatcher pair identified in the DEIR appears to occupy habitat in the coastal zone directly adjacent to the airport property, and that this habitat area is designated as Proposed Hardline in the City's Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). The HMP is a California Coastal Commission-certified component of the City's Local Coastal Program. Given that the Master Plan Update projects propose to receive federal funding, the DEIR should address whether federal consistency review under the CZMA would be required and the potential results of that consistency review, including whether the City's HMP conservation policies for properties inside of the coastal zone would apply. Note, in particular, the City's HMP policies for conserving gnatcatchers and their habitat in the Coastal Zone. f) The DEIR does not appear to analyze potential impacts to offsite vernal pools. Please address those impacts, as well as the application of the CZMA federal consistency review and the City's HMP conservation policies that could apply to those impacts. (See for example, HMP Policy 7-14a, specific to this site [p. D-119].) 7. Section 2.3.1 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Existing Conditions) (p. 2-49) We understand that the landfill classification was changed from Category 1 to Category 2 on July 12, 2016, "meaning there is a reduced risk to drinking water." (p. 2-50) Given that previous County objections to irrigation of landfill slope areas were due in part to groundwater contamination concerns, please discuss whether this change in classification improves the feasibility of providing landscaping and irrigation on the slopes along Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. (See DEIR Comment II.B.3 above). 8. Section 2.3.2.2 (Projects with Existing On-site Contamination (p. 2-62) This Section notes that "Construction activities would include runway and taxiway improvements over landfill Unit 3, and potential general aviation parking over landfill Unit l." (p. 2-63) Construction methods described elsewhere in the DEIR describe drilling hundreds of holes into and through the bottom of landfill Unit 3 to install displacement column piles into competent soils in order to support the runway extension. Please update the description in this Section to clarify that the construction activities would not only occur over landfill Unit 3, but also into the Unit. Additionally, the DEIR should discuss potential hazards associated with this construction method, or explain why such an analysis is not needed. 22 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 24 of 87 Please reevaluate whether mitigation measure M-HZ-1, described in Section 2.3.5 (Mitigation Measures) (p. 2-67), sufficiently addresses the potential hazards associated with this construction method. 9. Section 2.3.2.3 (Airport Hazards) (p. 2-64) California state law requires each county with jurisdiction over an airport served by a scheduled airline to designate an Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") and requires the ALUC to prepare a land use compatibility plan ("ALUCP") for each such airport (California Public Utilities Code§ 21670(b)). In San Diego County, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ("SDCRAA") acts as the ALUC. Section 2.3.2.3 provides that the "SDCRAA is the responsible agency within San Diego County for regulating land uses within the AIAs ["Airport Influence Areas"] of 16 public-use and military airports." (p. 2-65) While SDCRAA is the responsible agency for determining the compatibility of land uses, land use authority still resides with the municipality. Please update Section 2.3.2.3 to make this distinction clear. 10. Section 2.3.2.3 (Airport Hazards) (p. 2-64) Section 2.3.2.3 provides that "the marginal shift in RPZs would not render existing or approved land uses incompatible with an applicable ALUCP or constitute a hazard to aviation." (p. 2-65) The current ALUCP assigns lands within the airport influence area to a Safety Zone numbered 1 through 6 (see ALUCP Exhibit 111-2). Safety Zone 1 is the RPZ and is the most restrictive in terms of compatibility ofland uses. ALUCP Policy 3.4.12 states that the basic compatibility criteria for Safety Zone 1 preclude most uses, including any new structures and uses having an assemblage of people. Further, "the presumption is that the airport owner owns or intends to acquire property interests -fee title or easements -sufficient to effectuate this policy. The ALUC policy is to encourage airport acquisition of these property interests in all of Safety Zone 1 with funding assistance from the FAA." The analysis in this Section alludes to the ALUCP policy regarding the RPZ (Safety Zone 1 ), but does not address compatibility restrictions imposed on land uses in Safety Zones 2 through 6. It is conceivable that the northward shift ofth~ runway and corresponding shift of the Safety Zones (in addition to the RPZ) could result in properties being placed in a more restrictive Safety Zone. This could in fact render an existing or approved land use incompatible with the ALUCP. In light of this potential outcome, please update this Section to address potential impacts to properties in all of the Safety Zones, not just the RPZ. (Please refer also to Master Plan Update Comment LC, above, which address the treatment of the RPZs in the Master Plan Update.) 11. Section 2.3.6 (Conclusion) (p. 2-68) This Section states that "The construction and operation of any structures on the inactive landfill units associated with the Proposed Project will comply with Title 27 CCR, Section 21190(g) to ensure there is no release of CH4." (p. 2-68) Please also address whether the proposed bridge method for constructing the runway extension can be accomplished without the release of methane. 23 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 25 of 87 12. Section 2.4 (Noise) (p. 2-73) The CEQA Initial Study Checklist for the DEIR requires that a project "located within an airport land use plan" must be evaluated to determine whether the project would "expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels." (See DEIR Appendix A, p. 33) We presume that this checklist item refers to projects located within areas subject to an ALUCP under California law. To meaningfully address this issue, individual noise events, such as a single aircraft flyover noise levels, must be taken into consideration. While the DEIR includes analysis using the Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") cumulative noise metric, local residents have a legitimate concern as to how the Proposed Project will affect the number of additional nighttime overflights, the frequency of those overflights, and their effect on sleep disturbance. This concern is of particular significance because no restrictions on aircraft operating hours are proposed at the airport. Single noise events must be analyzed in order to adequately address whether residents will be exposed to noise levels that rise to the level of being annoying or interfering with daily activities. Please include such an analysis in the evaluation of noise impacts of the Proposed Project. 13. Section 2.4.1 (Noise --Existing Conditions) (p. 2-73) To evaluate noise impacts, Section 2.4.1 explains that "An ambient noise survey was conducted based on twelve noise measurements taken in ten separate locations." (p. 2-74) The locations of these measurements are shown on Figure 2.4-3 (Ambient Noise Measurements) (p. 2-93). It is clear from this figure that while 15-minute ambient noise measurements were taken in all directions surrounding the airport, 24-hour noise measurements were not taken to the north of the airport. Carlsbad residents have expressed concern regarding both the noise impacts of aircraft overflights throughout the night, and the lack of measurements taken to the north of the airport. Please explain why no 24-hour noise measurements were taken in this location. 14. Section 2.4.1 (Noise --Existing Conditions) (p. 2-73) The FAA's proposed Southern California Metroplex "NextGen" air navigation system has the potential to affect flight patterns and schedules within the vicinity of the airport. While San Diego County has no control over the FAA or its management of navigable airspace, there is no doubt that the implementation of FAA' s Metroplex plans has caused considerable community concern and disruption throughout the nation -from northern California to Phoenix and from Seattle to Washington, DC. In light of the cumulative impacts of these new flight track procedures and the Proposed Project, please update the DEIR to evaluate noise impacts in the context of FAA flight track changes. The City previously provided this comment to the County in connection with the 2016 publication of the DEIR Notice of Preparation, but no discussion of the interplay between the FAA' s NextGen system and the Proposed Project was included in the DEIR. 24 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 26 of 87 15. Sectionv2.4.2 (Noise --Analysis of Project Effects and Determination as to Significance) (p. 2-77) Section 2.4.2 provides that "The analysis in this PEIR includes a comparison of the Proposed Project's potential aviation noise impact associated with increased commercial air service activity in existing (2016) conditions, and future (2036) conditions. The County has no discretion or enforcement over non-commercial aviation activity, so the noise impact analysis does not include anticipated growth of non-commercial aircraft growth over the planning period." (p. 2-78) This statement is both incomplete and not meaningful for CEQA purposes. First, the quotation in the DEIR is not complete. The technical report states: "As the County has the discretionary authority to allow for additional commercial service operations at the Airport, the noise analysis included not only an evaluation of impacts generated from the Proposed Project improvements, but an evaluation of the change in noise generated from the increase in commercial aircraft operations forecasted in the Airport Master Plan." (Appendix D, Executive Summary, p. vii). Please'clarify whether the statement in the DEIR or in the Appendix is accurate because the two statements are fundamentally different. The City understands that the County may not directly place restrictions on any aeronautical activity with FAA approval under the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. This statute applies equally to both commercial and non-commercial airport users. Contrary to the statement in the DEIR, no distinction is recognized based upon the type of user. Notwithstanding limitations on the County's authority under federal law, there is nothing in CEQA which exempts the County from analyzing: (1) increases in aircraft activity attributable to the Proposed Project, even if it does not have the independent legal authority to control that activity; and (2) cumulative impacts of aircraft operations at the airport-regardless of the type and regardless of whether such impacts are attributable to the Proposed Project. The purpose of the DEIR is to analyze impacts even if the County itself cannot prevent those impacts and the County's authority is only relevant in the later discussion of mitigation. While the County has extremely limited authority to limit actual aircraft operations, the County does have considerable (and virtually plenary) authority to develop (or not develop) facilities to accommodate aircraft users. For example, the County enters into ground leases with fixed-base operators that service aircraft of various sizes and types, and as a ground-facility manager, it has at least indirect control over whether facilities are provided either to accommodate or to induce certain types of commercial or general aviation operations. As an example, if the County chose not to provide facilities to accommodate certain types of aircraft, while it could not prohibit those aircraft from operating at the airport (if their operation were safe), and while it could not prohibit a private sector service provider from accommodating those operations (if doing so complied with the County's minimum standards), the decision on what facilities to provide, when to provide those facilities, the price at which services are provided, and the general level of customer service for users would all be highly relevant in the level of operations by that type of aircraft. It is, therefore, overly simplistic and inaccurate to assert that 25 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 27 of 87 the County has no control over aircraft operations and that it therefore need to examine the impacts of certain types of operations. We request that the County explain that, while the County has no discretion or enforcement over either commercial or non-commercial aviation activity, its decisions on where, when and how to provide facilities will have an effect on aircraft operations. The County should explain the relationship between facilities and operations for both commercial and non-commercial operations. For clarity, the County should explain the cumulative impacts of: (1) actions within the County's control; (2) actions as a result of the Proposed Project; and (3) cumulative actions that result in an increase in aircraft operations at the airport. Regardless of the legal extent of County authority, the County should explain transparently that the impacts of aircraft noise are not tied to whether particular operations are commercial or non-commercial in nature and are not tied to the County's lack oflegal authority to regulate such operations. The noise impacts of both of these types of operation should be analyzed in the DEIR as noise impacts. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook provides at D-27 that "For general aviation, solid data may be scarce and use of estimates may become necessary." While the County may not have comprehensive data on general aviation, it must not disregard the potential noise impacts from this form of aviation. CEQA Guidelines § 15144 states that "While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." Best efforts should therefore be made to anticipate non-commercial aircraft growth over the planning period, and to analyze the potential aviation noise impact of such growth in the DEIR. (It is worth noting that general aviation airports in the United States routinely prepare noise contours, engage in noise compatibility planning under Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, mitigate noise impacts and, most importantly, prepare forecasts of aviation activity to justify capital projects. The County clearly has the expertise comparable to that of other general aviation airport proprietors to engage in such analysis.) The County should distinguish in its noise analysis between cumulative noise impacts and those impacts that are attributable to the Proposed Project. 16. Section 2.4.2.1 (Noise Sensitive Land Uses) (p. 2-79) The noise analysis in the Master Plan Update and DEIR considers two different forecast planning scenarios -PAL 1 (totaling 195,000 annual aircraft operations) and PAL 2 (totaling 208,004 annual aircraft operations) (see DEIR p. 2-80). We note that the current ALUCP assumes 289,100 annual operations (see ALUCP p. 3-2), which is a substantially larger figure than that presented in either PAL 1 or PAL 2. Please address the reasons for this difference. In particular, if the County rejects the ALUCP forecast, the DEIR should explain why the County's projections are more reliable than those previously done as part of the ALUCP process. 17. Section 2.4.2.1 (Noise Sensitive Land Uses) (p. 2-79) This Section provides that "In accordance with FAA guidelines, the noise analysis is measured by comparing conditions with and without the project in the same implementation year (i.e., 2036) .... In other words, for the purpose of the noise analysis, the 'without project' scenario anticipates that aircraft operations would naturally continue to increase overtime [sic] regardless of commercial airline activity or capital improvements associated with the Master Plan Update." (p. 2-79) Essentially, two future baselines are being compared against one another, instead of 26 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 28 of 87 comparing existing conditions to projected ones, to determine noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses. CEQA Guidelines§ 15125(a) requires that "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. The environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." CEQA requirements are therefore generally understood to require that measured existing conditions be used as a baseline against projected future conditions. However, the California Supreme Court has held that "Projected future conditions may be used as the sole baseline for impacts analysis if their use in place of measured existing conditions -a departure from the norm stated in Guidelines§ 15125(a)-is justified by unusual aspects of the project or the surrounding conditions." Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro. Line Constr. Auth., 57 Cal. 4th 439, 451-52, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 12,304 P.3d 499, 508-09 (2013) We note that Table 2.4-6 (Existing Conditions vs. Existing Conditions with Proposed Project [PAL 2]) (p. 2-99) does compare current conditions to future forecasts, and a brief discussion of this comparison is provided in Sections 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2 (Project Generated Airborne Noise) (p. 2-81). However, the focus of the noise analysis remains a comparison of future-to-future conditions, not present-to-future conditions. In light of the CEQA guidance set forth above, and in light of the need for transparency, please include an additional comparison of present conditions to future projections with respect to noise impacts. Such a comparison will allow the public to have an understanding of the future environment ( as compared to today's environment) without regard to whether the changes from today are attributable to actions by the County ( as set forth in the Master Plan Update) or are attributable to organic growth in aircraft operations. Understanding the County's role as decision-maker is important to the disclosure and transparency objectives of CEQA and without such data, it is difficult or impossible for the public to have a meaningful understanding of that role. 18. Section 2.4.2.1 (Noise Sensitive Land Uses) (p. 2-79) This Section explains that the "PAL 2 noise contours extend over Planned Industrial and Open Space land uses that are not defined by the FAA or ALUCP as noise sensitive." (p. 2-80) These land use classifications are based on the Carlsbad General Plan's planned uses for this area however, and do not necessarily reflect current conditions. Additionally, Section 2.4.3 (Cumulative Impact Analysis) provides that "there are no noise-sensitive land uses located within the 60 [dB] CNEL contours under Existing Conditions (2016) or Future Conditions (2036) scenarios. A review of the City of Carlsbad's General Plan determined that there are no changes to the land uses surrounding the Airport .... " (p. 2-84) This statement is not precisely accurate. We note that there are a number of hotels in the vicinity of the airport, and that hotel uses are considered noise sensitive land uses (seep. 2-79). Rather than relying solely on the planned uses as set forth in the Carlsbad General Plan, please evaluate whether the Proposed Project will not impact nearby existing or recently approved hotel uses. 27 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 29 of 87 19. Section 2.4.2.2 (Project Generated Airborne Noise) (p. 2-81) The threshold outlined in this Section discusses non-construction airborne noise, while the analysis focuses entirely on noise from projected vehicle trips. Please address why no other airborne noise sources are discussed in this Section. 20. Section 2.4.5 (Mitigation Measures) (p. 2-84) This Section explains how construction noise mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that the noise limits specified in the San Diego County Code will be adhered to, and that if the construction hours mandated by the County Noise Ordinance need to be varied, County airport staff will seek a Noise Variance Permit from the County Noise Officer. The City also limits construction hours in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.48.010 (Construction Hours Limitations), which should similarly be adhered to. Please commit to following these limitations, unless exempted by a designated City official. 21. Section 2.4.5 (Mitigation Measures) (p. 2-84) The City requests that the County commit to allowing the City to review and comment on construction noise mitigation plans and implementation processes. The City further requests that the County commit to coordinating with the City's Communications Office regarding planned major construction activities, so that residents and businesses can be informed of such activities in a timely manner. 22. Section 2.4.5 (Mitigation Measures) (p. 2-84) At the February 13, 2018, airport informational meeting hosted by the County, airport staff described steps that the County intends to take to strengthen Voluntary Noise Abatement Procedures ("VNAP") beyond the VNAP measures described in the Master Plan Update. Please incorporate these actions into the planned mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR, and update the Master Plan Update to include these additional steps. The inclusion of comprehensive VNAP is especially important in light of the fact that Policy F-44, which included a VNAP commitment, may be rescinded ( as discussed above in Master Plan Update Comment II.A. I). So that the public can understand the value of the VNAP as a mitigation measure, it would be helpful for the County to provide data ( to the extent that it is available) on the degree of compliance with the VNAP -is this program a meaningful mitigation measure or it something on paper only that aircraft operators routinely ignore? Since the Carlsbad community so fundamentally depends upon the success of the VNAP, it is important to understand whether it has been successful in the past, whether the County expects the level of compliance to increase or decrease, and what further actions, if any, that the County plans to take to ensure compliance to the maximum extent permitted by law. We expect that the mitigation section will include a commitment by the County to encourage and pressure users for compliance with the VNAP to the extent allowed by federal law. 28 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 30 of 87 23. Section 2.5.1.1 Transportation and Traffic -Study Area) (p. 2- 101) Please note that reference is made on p. 2-102 to "Oak Ridge Way" but no such road exists in the area. 24. Section 2.5.2.6 (Regulatory Setting) (p. 2-105) This Section correctly notes that Palomar Airport Road from I-5 to College Boulevard and from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive are exempt from the City's vehicle Level of Service ("LOS"} standards (seep. 2-106). This intersection is instead governed by Policy 3-P.11 of the Carlsbad Mobility Element (p. 3-30), which identifies the need to implement both Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") strategies and Transportation System Management ("TSM") strategies in this location. To mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Project on traffic at this intersection, the City requests that the County develop a site/employer-based TDM plan, and that the County document the TDM activities that they are or will be implementing in conjunction with both the site/employer and operational activities of the airport. 25. Section 2.5.4.1 Performance of Circulation System (p. 2-108 - 2-109 At the bottom of page 2-108, the language states that "The Proposed Project will not augment the non-commercial uses at the airport and therefore, non-commercial land uses did not need to be accounted for in the trip generation projections." As a general matter, as with our comments on other DEIR sections, we do not believe it is appropriate for the transportation analysis to omit from its analysis trips that may be generated by non-commercial land uses. As one example, the Master Plan Update at page 3-24 clearly states that based aircraft at the Airport is projected to increase, presumably resulting in an increase in vehicle trips associated with based aircraft use. Please explain why the DEIR does not include vehicle trips from non-commercial activities in its transportation analysis. 26. Section 2.5.4.1 Performance of Circulation System (p. 2-108) In the third paragraph of page 3-59, the DEIR refers to transportation improvements recommended in the Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan (AMAP) and the Regional Aviation Strategic Plan (RASP), prepared by the SDCRAA; however, these improvements are not described in this transportation section. Please identify what the recommended improvements are and how they relate to the Master Plan Update and relevant sections of the City's General Plan. 27. Section 2.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis (p. 2-112) As noted above with regard to Table 1-4, a number of projects identified by the City for the cumulative impacts analysis do not appear to have been included in this study. Please explain this omission. 28. Section 2.5.6 (Transportation and Traffic -Mitigation Measures) (p. 2-114) 29 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 31 of 87 a) M-TR-1: Palomar Airport Road I El Camino Real Intersection: Section 2.5.6 describes that "Cumulative impacts would be mitigated below the level of significance by financially contributing a fair-share payment to the City of Carlsbad towards the installation of signal improvements along Palomar Airport Road or other Transportation System Management strategy to improve signal operations .... this would equate to an estimated fair-share payment of 7 .5 percent ... " (p. 2-114 ). The City concurs with this mitigation measure. b) M-TR-2: Palomar Airport Road I Camino Vida Roble Intersection: Per Policy 3-P.10 of the Carlsbad Mobility Element, this intersection is not exempt from the City's vehicle LOS standards, and therefore the appropriate mitigation measure would be to reconfigure the intersection. The DEIR should include an improvement to the intersection to mitigate impacts, and the County should contribute a lump sum payment of 10.7 percent of the cost of this mitigation measure. Alternatively, the County may request that the Carlsbad City Council approve adding this intersection to the list of street facilities exempt from LOS standards, and follow the approach set forth above with respect to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, utilizing a cost-share rate of 10.7 percent rather than 7.5 percent. C. Chapter 3 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant 1. Table 3.1.2-6 (Future Project Emissions from Operational Activities) (p. 3-26) Please provide operational emissions in pounds per day, rather than tons per year, as this is the measurement referenced in the significance threshold. (See Section 3 .1.2.3 [ Analysis of Project Effects and Determination as to Significance] [p. 3-14]) It appears that the analysis outlined in this table is based solely on future commercial flight operations, not all flight operations (which would also include general aviation activities). The omission of general aviation operations from this analysis provides an artificially low total emissions result. Please update this analysis to consider emissions from both commercial and general aviation operations. Additionally, the City has concerns regarding the reliability of the future baselines included in this table, as they are dramatically lower than existing emissions totals. Table 3 .1.2- 1 (p. 3-23) indicates that existing carbon monoxide emissions total 1,111.54 tons per year (or 6,090 pounds per day, far in excess of the 550 pounds per day significance threshold). The projected emissions totals set forth in Table 3.1.2-6 are significantly lower than these numbers. Please provide a more comprehensive discussion regarding the methodology for reaching these numbers, and as noted, include general aviation emissions also .in these totals. 2. Table 3.1.2-7 (Project-related Emissions from Operational Activities) (p. 3-26) The notes to this table explain that the "'Proposed Project' is defined as only aircraft operations associated with commercial activity from PAL 2 (since the County has discretion over approval of commercial air service leases). As discussed above with respect to noise impacts and the project emissions set forth in Table 3.1.2-6, this approach seems to underestimate actual airport impacts, as general aviation operations are being omitted. We note that future airport improvement projects benefit, and therefore likely attract, growth of all aircraft operations, not 30 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 32 of 87 just commercial flights. Please ensure that the DEIR analyzes impacts of all operational activities -commercial and general aviation. 3. Section 3.1.4.2.5 (Expansive Soils) (p. 3-41) This Section provides that "The CBC [California Building Code] requires that the Proposed Project, both airfield and landside improvements, comply with the building permit or with the Building Code in effect when final design plans are submitted." (p. 3-42) The City wishes to clarify that airport buildings are subject to any and all codes and standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad, including local amendments, except for those buildings owned, leased or occupied by the County, State, or by federal agencies. This authority is grounded in Chapter 1 of the California Fire and Building Codes. With respect to the airport, the County's jurisdiction is therefore over the Airport Terminal, the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting facility, the Maintenance and Operations Building and the Administrative Office Building. All other airport buildings and hangars are the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad Fire and Building Departments for the purposes of plan review, permit issuance and construction inspections. Please ensure that the DEIR clarifies this distinction. 4. Section 3.1.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (p. 3-53) We have the following comments on the GHG emissions analysis. a) The DEIR's regulatory environment section should be revised to describe the applicable provisions of the Air Resources Board's 2017 Scoping Plan2 and San Diego County's Final Climate Action Plan (CAP),3 which was adopted on February 14, 2018. The 2017 Scoping Plan sets forth the state strategy to achieve SB 32's GHG reduction target ofreducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, including strategies for stationary and mobile source GHG emissions. Similarly, the County CAP presents strategies for reducing stationary and mobile source GHG emissions from County facilities such as the McClellan- Palomar Airport. Also, the regulatory environment section should be updated to describe applicable requirements of the latest version of SANDAG's RTP/SCS, entitled San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, which was adopted in 2015. 4 b) The GHG impact analysis uses incorrect and outdated methodologies and significance thresholds, and should therefore be revised, as discussed in detail below. Lead agencies are required to ensure that CEQA GHG impact analyses stay "in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes." Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 519. c) The GHG impact analysis repeatedly and mistakenly asserts (see, e.g., p. 3-55) that since the County has no authority to regulate aircraft or their emissions, there is no applicable methodology or threshold with which to evaluate their significance. This type of assertion misstates CEQA's requirements and should be removed from the DEIR. Even if the County cannot directly regulate aircraft emissions, the DEIR must still disclose those emissions and address the feasibility of mitigating any significant impacts, for example through changing those airport operations which the County does control. See Association of Irritated Residents v. 2 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf 3 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/cega/Climate Action Plan Public Review.html 4 https ://www.sdforward.com/previous-p Ian 31 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 33 of 87 Kern County Bd. of Supervisors (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 708 (County was not preempted from disclosing rail operations impacts caused by refinery expansion and identifying feasible mitigation measures, even though it was preempted from directly regulating mainline rail operations). Moreover, the referenced ACRP Report 11 Guidebook (p.16) states that "airports can have varying degrees of influence over sources they do not own. In general, all airport tenants are affected by the assets owned and controlled by the airport operator in some way, even if loosely through airport policies. As such, the airport operator may influence each source at the airport to varying degrees, and may also be able to claim recognition/ credit for emissions reductions from those sources as well." d) The DEIR's GHG analysis of both construction and operations emissions should be explicitly guided by CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.4 which states in part that the significance of GHG emissions should be determined by whether the project increases GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting ( emphasis added), and the extent to which the project complies with requirements of statewide, regional or local plans to reduce GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.4 gives each lead agency the affirmative duty to develop its own GHG methodologies and thresholds regardless of project type. The DEIR misstates CEQA requirements when stating (p. 3-55) that "[i]n the absence of state and local GHG thresholds applicable to aviation sources and air travel," the Draft PEIR uses CEQ guidance to analyze aviation-related GHG emissions." The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for review of GHG impacts under NEPA is not applicable to the DEIR and should not be used, not only because it has been for formally rescinded, but also because it is not consistent with the precise language of CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.4. e) The CAPCOA thresholds described on DEIR pages 3-57 and 3-58 for construction impacts are outdated and inapplicable to the proposed project for several reasons, and should not be used. The CAPCOA thresholds were published in 2008, when GHG impact analysis under CEQA was still in its infancy and the governing "SB 97" CEQA Guidelines for GHG analysis had not yet been adopted. The disclaimer to the CAPCOA white paper notes that the report was prepared soon after AB 32 was adopted in 2006, and that at that time, "the full programmatic implications of this new law" were "not fully understood." The paper was intended as a resource "in the face of incomplete information during a period of change." Second, the DEIR provides no evidence that the 900 MT C02e and 4.9 MTC02e/SP/yr thresholds extracted from the CAPCOA paper would prevent significant GHG impacts from occurring given current scientific knowledge and state regulatory frameworks; for example, these thresholds were developed well before SB 32's ambitious 2030 GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels was enacted. To achieve this target, 2017 Scoping Plan (pp. 101-102) recommends a net zero threshold for project EIRs unless it is infeasible to achieve; a net zero threshold could be used to judge the significance of the proposed project's construction GHG emissions unless it is infeasible to achieve. Further, the DEIR improperly applies an efficiency threshold (4.9 MTC02e/SP/yr) to judge the significance of construction impacts, and this threshold should not be used. An efficiency threshold may theoretically be appropriate to apply to annual operational impacts, but not to short-term construction impacts, as the example calculations presented in the CAPCOA 32 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 34 of 87 white paper demonstrate (see, e.g., pp. 62-64).5 In addition, the DEIR improperly uses the entire San Diego County service population as a denominator when calculating the proposed project's efficiency metric; to be accurate, it should have used the project-specific Master Plan's service population. Lastly, the 4.9 MTC02e/SP/yr threshold appears to be derived from AB 32's 2020 GHG reduction target, not the more ambitious SB 32 GHG reduction target (CAPCOA white paper, p. 4). f) The construction impacts analysis improperly treats each of the 16 improvement elements as a discrete project, thereby "piecemealing" impacts of the Master Plan and understating the overall construction related GHG emissions. Because GHG emissions persist in the atmosphere for many decades, it would be especially appropriate for the DEIR to add all construction emissions to determine overall construction impacts of the Master Plan. Under CEQA, a project under CEQA is defined as "the whole of the action" that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)). For this DEIR, the Master Plan is a single project. Therefore, construction emissions from each project element should be totaled. To avoid piecemealing, construction GHG emissions should then be added to operational GHG emissions to disclose total GHG emissions caused by the Master Plan. 6 g) For operational GHG emissions, the DEIR does not present an explicit quantitative significance threshold that is consistent with current scientific knowledge and state's regulatory schemes. For example, consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, a net zero threshold could be used to judge the significance of the proposed project's operational GHG emissions unless it is infeasible to achieve. h) The operational impact analysis improperly uses only a future baseline (future conditions without project); see, e.g., Table 3 .1.5-6. However, the environmental setting (existing conditions) normally constitutes the baseline by which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. CEQ A Guidelines § 15125 (a). A future baseline, if supported by substantial evidence, may also be used in addition to the existing environmental setting, but cannot be the sole baseline unless use of the existing environmental setting would be uninformative or misleading. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 439. The DEIR cites FAA Guidance recommending comparison of future no project and proposed project emissions (p. 3-62), but this guidance does not supersede CEQA's requirements for also presenting an analysis using an existing conditions baseline. The DEIR does not demonstrate that using an existing conditions baseline would be uninformative or misleading. Proposed project GHG emissions compared to existing conditions could theoretically calculated from information presented in the Draft Climate Change Technical 5 Regarding operational impacts, the three reasons the DEIR (p. 3-58) uses for not applying an efficiency threshold to operational impacts (e.g., "[t]he EIR is programmatic") are not persuasive, since a Program EIR is prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. CEQA Guidelines§ 15168(a). Nevertheless, in a revised analysis an efficiency threshold should not be applied to proposed project operational impacts without further evidence that it is relevant to project impacts, and would prevent significant GHG impacts from occurring given current scientific knowledge and state regulatory frameworks. 6 These comments nevertheless address the validity of separate thresholds for construction and operational impacts because that is the approach used in the DEIR. 33 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 35 of 87 report, but important information like this should not be buried in an EIR appendix where it is difficult for the average reader to locate and understand. See, e.g., California Oak Found. v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App. 4th 1219. Therefore, the DEIR text should be revised to include an operational GHG emissions impact analysis using existing conditions as a baseline. i) Even under a future baseline, the GHG increases from operational activities are quite large (as shown in Table 3.1.5-6. a net increase of 13,469 MTC02e/yr under Scenario PAL 1, and 24,115 MTC02e/yr under Scenario PAL 2). Using an existing conditions baseline would add an additional 15,290 MTC02e/yr to these increases (Table 3.1.5-5 total minus Table 3.1.5-1 total). These large increases should be considered significant impacts; the DEIR presents no convincing reasons why they should not be considered significant. Further, the analysis does not appear to include existing and future emissions by all of the various FBOs/tenants, and thus does not provide a complete picture of airport related GHG (see, e.g. Table 3 .1.5-2); the DEIR should explain these omissions. j) The Draft PEIR (p. 3-63) uses conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions as a significance threshold for operational emissions, but the one paragraph analysis is conclusory and fails to address conflicts with two highly-relevant plans --the 2017 Scoping Plan and the County CAP. The DEIR should be revised to disclose these conflicts and the associated significant impacts. The proposed project's combined construction and operational GHG emissions should be considered significant because they are inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed project's large GHG emissions increases are inconsistent with the state's ability to achieve the steep declines in GHG emissions called for in the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the proposed project fails to explicitly incorporate stationary and mobile source GHG reduction strategies described in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed project's combined construction and operational GHG emissions should also be considered significant because they appear to be inconsistent with the adopted County CAP. The Draft PEIR does not disclose whether the proposed project's emissions are included in the County CAP emission projections. It appears the County CAP excluded McClellan- Palomar Airport from its County Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (see County CAP Appendix B, Table 3). If airport GHG emissions are not covered by the County CAP, it becomes even more important that GHG emissions are properly analyzed as significant as part of the DEIR, and mitigated. Also, to help determine consistency with the County CAP, the DEIR should disclose whether the proposed project incorporates any of the following the following County CAP measures designed to reduce GHG emissions from County facilities: • T-2.3 Reduce county employee VMT • T-3.2 Use alternative fuels in County projects • T-3.4 Reduce the County's fleet emissions • E-1.4 Reduce energy use at County facilities • E-2.4 Increase use of on-site renewable electricity generation for County operations 34 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 36 of 87 • W-1.3 Reduce potable water consumption at County facilities k) Based on the above comments, the proposed project's GHG emissions impact appear to be significant. The DEIR should therefore be revised to reach this conclusion and then present feasible measures or alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen this impact. Potentially feasible mitigation measures can be derived from the County CAP GHG reduction measures listed above, from City of Carlsbad's adopted Climate Action Plan, and from the San Diego Forward Final EIR (e.g., Mitigation Measure GHG-4H). In addition, Section 4 of the Draft Climate Change Technical Report offers a number of GHG reduction mitigation measures that the County could implement as part of the Master Plan. These include electric-powered Ground Power Units and Ground Support Equipment, both of which the Technical Report considers to be potentially feasible. 1) The DEIR also fails to include a quantitative energy impact analysis, either as part of the GHG section or in a stand-alone analysis, as required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix F and case law interpreting Appendix F requirements. An EIR must quantify a project's energy impacts, and then determine whether a proposed project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. See, e.g., Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App. 4th 912; California Clean Energy Com. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173. These cases require that a project's increases in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption must be quantified and included in the DEIR; energy assumptions embedded in air quality and GHG emissions calculations, or statements indicating the project will comply with applicable building codes, are insufficient. An energy impact analysis should be added to the DEIR. If the analysis determines that the proposed project's energy impacts are significant, then the DEIR should present feasible mitigation measures, many of which could be the same as discussed for GHG impacts above. m) Under CEQA Guidelines§ 15088.5, a DEIR must be recirculated for additional public review if "significant new information" is added in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse effect or feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. Based on the above comments, significant new information that should be added to the Draft PEIR includes: • Major revisions to the construction and operations GHG impact analysis. GHG emissions will likely be a new significant impact once appropriate significance thresholds are employed. • Evaluations of potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project's significant GHG impact. • Addition of a quantitative energy impact analysis and evaluations of feasible energy mitigation measures if energy impacts are significant. Therefore, the County should consider whether the DEIR needs to be revised and recirculated. 35 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 37 of 87 5. Table 3.1.7-1 County-Owned Land (p. 3-82) This table lists 82.67 acres of vacant property to the east of El Camino Real, but as previously discussed in this letter, the existing MALSR are located in this area. The City therefore suggests adding a footnote to this table, clarifying that this "vacant" property is the location of the MALSR. Further, Section 3.1.7.1 (Existing Conditions), in describing the area outlined in Table 3 .1. 7-1, explains that the "County also owns a vacant 203-acre parcel located east of El Camino Real; however, this parcel is not included in the Proposed Project since no improvements are identified by the Airport Master Plan Update." (p. 3-81) Please update this Section to explain that this is the location of the MALSR and planned MALSR relocation. 6. Section 3.1.7.1.1 (Land Use and Planning..'.. Existing Land Uses) (p. 3-82) Section 3 .1. 7 .1.1 provides that "The airport is bounded to the east by El Camino Real, and further east lies a County-owned parcel that contains a mixture of existing industrial uses, vacant fallow lands, and existing open space granted to the City under a conservation easement."7 (p. 3-82 -3-83) This conservation easement applies to property located to the northeast of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, in the vicinity of the existing MALSR system. Please discuss whether the proposed relocation of the MALSR will impact the land subject to the Conservation Easement, and if so, how the County will address this impact. (Please also refer to DEIR Comment II.B.6, above, regarding the potential impacts to biological resources of relocating MALSR in a designated preserve area.) 7. Section 3.1.7.1.2 (Land Use and Planning --Relevant Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-83) This Section describes the guidelines that should be considered in land use planning for airport improvements. In addition to the policies listed, please also include the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards ( applicable to actions that impact property facing El Camino Real), the Carlsbad Landscape Manual, and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.95 (Hillside Development Regulations). 8. Section 3.1.7.1.2 (Land Use and Planning--Relevant Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-83) This Section provides that "Section 21.53.015 [of the Carlsbad Municipal Code] would only be applicable if the County were to expand the Airport beyond its current boundaries and a City legislative enactment or City expenditure in support of such an expansion were required." (p. 3-90) As there are varied opinions as to what actions would constitute "expansion" (the actual term used in the Code), rather than simply an enlargement of the airport beyond its current boundaries, please clarify that this is the County's position as to the applicability of the Code. 7 Conservation Easement Deed #2004-1123441 was authorized by the County Board of Supervisors on June 23, 2004 and subsequently approved on October 14, 2004. The document was recorded on November 30, 2004. 36 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 38 of 87 Please also clarify that a zoning change necessary for the expansion as well as a City legislative enactment or City expenditure, would trigger the applicability of this Code section. Simifar clarification is required in Section 3 .1. 7.2.2 (Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations) (p. 3-92), where a similar description of the applicability of Code section 21.53.015 is made. Please also note that as individual plan components of the Master Plan Update are developed for implementation, the City will review each such project to determine whether the project prompts the need for additional approvals from the City or a public vote pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015. 9. Section 3.1.7.1.2 (Relevant Policies, Ordinance, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-84) As described on p. 3-86 of this Section, the City has adopted a Growth Management Plan, which places conditions on how growth may occur while maintaining a desirable mix of commercial, industrial, recreation, open space, and infrastructure. In connection with the Growth Management Plan, the City has been divided into 25 subareas with a unique Local Facilities Management Plan ("LFMP") for each subarea. The airport is located within LFMP Zone 5. While the LFMP is referenced in this Section, no discussion is provided regarding whether the Master Plan Update is consistent with the Zone 5 LFMP. The DEIR should include such an evaluation. 10. Section 3.1.7.1.2 (Relevant Policies, Ordinance, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-83 -90) This Section describes on page 3-87 that "As part of the proposed Airport Master Plan, the ALP would be revised to depict anticipated improvements in the 20-year planning period (2016- 2036)." Please also describe how the revised ALP would trigger the need to update the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") (which is touched upon in Section 3.1.7.2.2 [Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plan, Policies, or Regulations] [p. 3-91]), and how this in turn may require the City to update its General Plan for consistency with the ALUCP. 11. Section 3.1. 7.1.2 (Relevant Policies, Ordinance, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-83 -90) This Section explains that the Carlsbad General Plan "identifies the Airport with a land use designation of 'Public' and has the property zoned 'Industrial."' (p. 3-87) While this is true of the area to the northwest of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, other portions of airport property to the east of El Camino Real and to the south of Palomar Airport Road have other land use and zoning designations. This description highlights the importance of providing clear definitions of the various forms of airport property, as discussed in DEIR Comment LB, including the area owned by the County for airport uses, and the area currently within the airport fence line. Please ensure that the DEIR correctly characterizes all of the applicable land use and zoning designations. 37 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 39 of 87 12. Section 3.1. 7 .1.2 (Relevant Policies, Ordinance, and Adopted Plans) (p. 3-83 -90) Page 3-89 of the DEIR regarding CUP 172 states "While the County has immunities from City land use requirements, including the requirement to obtain a new CUP or amended CUP, and the County hereby asserts those immunities, the County notes that design changes to the Airport addressed by this Master Plan Update remain consistent with the portions of CUP-172 that have not been rendered moot by the FAA." The DEIR is required to provide an independent evaluation of the impacts of a project, not simply state legal conclusions of the project sponsor. Please provide an independent analysis of the basis for this statement. 13. Section 3.1.7.2.2 ((Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plan, Policies, or Regulations) (p. 3-91 -93) This Section provides that "Because the Proposed Project site is owned by the County, it is not subject to the land use plans and policies or municipal code of the City of Carlsbad, except where identified" (p. 3-91) and notes that "Future County public infrastructure improvements as part of the Proposed Project are not subject to City of Carlsbad regulations as further discussed earlier in this section. In an effort to ensure coordination with the City, the County looks to leasees [sic] to obtain approvals of private development on leaseholds wherever necessary but reserves the right to assert available immunities on behalf of tenants." (p. 3-92) As discussed in DEIR Comment II.C.6 above, the City wishes to clarify that airport buildings are subject to any and all codes and standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad, including local amendments, except for those buildings owned, leased or occupied by the County, State, or by federal agencies. The City also retains jurisdiction over private development within County-owned buildings; if a private tenant within the airport terminal building sought to introduce a use not contemplated by CUP 172, such use would require City approval in the form of an amendment to CUP 172. Please ensure that the DEIR clarifies this distinction between the City and County's respective land use authority. D. Chapter 4 Project Alternatives 1. Section 4.4.2.4 (Land Use) (p. 4-8) This Section explains that "the D-III Full Compliance Alternative [which would require approximately 22 acres of property acquisitions] would introduce new impacts associated with land use that would not otherwise occur under the Proposed Project." Please also discuss how this alternative, in expanding the airport boundaries, may trigger the need for additional approvals from the City or a public vote pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015. 38 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 40 of 87 To: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Raymond Bender <b Subject: Fwd: Bender Wednesday February 21, 2018 Supplemental Comments Related to Carlsbad City Council February 20, 2018 Meeting Agenda Item 3 Re: Palomar Master Plan City Clerk Pis confirm your receipt of below and distribution. Thnx. RB Begin forwarded message: From: Raymond Bender < Subject: Bender Wednesday February 21, 2018 Supplemental Comments Related to Carlsbad City Council February 20, 2018 Meeting Agenda Item 3 Re: Palomar Master Plan Date: February 21, 2018 at 3:22:32 PM PST To: City of Carlsbad <clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Raymond Bender <b To : Carlsbad City Clerk Please confirm your receipt of the above 16-page attachment and your distribution to the City Council Members, City Manager, Asst City Manager, and City Attorney. Note: This is our 2nd letter, NOT a resend of the letter dist~ibuted at the meeting yesterday. We assume that the City Attorney will request distribution of the letter to KKH but suggest you confirm that decision with her. As always, thanks for all the help. RB 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 42 of 87 February 21, 2018 Carlsbad City Council Members City Manager Kevin Crawford Assistant City Manager Jason Heber City Attorney Celia Brewer [ via the Carlsbad City Clerk] Ray & Ellen Bender San Marcos, CA 92078 Re: Supplemental Comments on Carlsbad City Council February 20, 2018 Special Meeting Agenda Item 3 Related to the Kaplan, Kirsch, Rockwell Presentation Related to the Palomar Airport Master Plan Carlsbad Council Members, City Manager, and Staff Yesterday, February 20, 2018 the firm of Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell (KKR) presented its legal analysis related to county processing its Palomar Master Plan Update. Today, we supplement our written February 18, 2018 comments with the table comments below. We present the comments to assist Carlsbad in further reviewing the issues. Thank you for your review and consideration of the issues raised. Bender Supplemental Comments on Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell Analysis of County Palomar Master Plan Update Preliminary Comments: • We recognize that KKR focuses on Carlsbad rather than county obligations. But to the extent that Carlsbad has any negotiating leverage with county, it is helpful to ask what weaknesses exist in the county position. For this reason, several comments below focus on county issues. • Although we applaud KKR's suggestions to improve the Carlsbad position in the future, we include some history below showing why such suggestions likely will minimally influence county or the FAA. In other words, it is good to think positively but bad to raise false hopes. • To the extent that FAA "cooperation" is desirable, history shows across the United States that the FAA becomes more flexible only when citizens aggressively oppose airport development.1 We note this simply to say: a Carlsbad resident vote on the 1 For instance, KKR mentioned Orange County yesterday as having success in aggressive monitoring of airports. However, our understanding is that residents of Newport Beach about 30 to 40 years ago sued the FAA resulting in a settlement related to aircraft noise and mandatory flight restrictions. It appears therefore 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 43 of 87 airport expansion -even if determined by the courts not to limit the county -is the only effective way to garner the FAA's attention. Of course, Carlsbad voters may support the expansion, rendering all issues moot. • Comments below continue to use the KKR terminology: county= airport proprietor and Carlsbad= host. • We did not see slide numbers on the black and white slides distributed at the meeting. We have numbered the slides beginning with the title page. • Due to time limits and the need to continue review of the county 3000+ page PMP and PMP PEIR, no effort has been made to refine or further justify the comments below. KKR Position Comment 1 • Slides 6-• County often says it cannot limit the aircraft using Palomar and 13 Airport hence cannot limit noise. The usual rationale: pilots decide what Law 101 airports to use and FAA grant conditions require non-discrimination and Federal to aircraft served. Preemption • However, as you know, the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act [ 49 USC 1371] creates certain proprietary exceptions from the general federal preemption rules for airport operators. • As you likely know, the California city of Santa Monica lost its battle with the FAA to ban C and D aircraft from using the Santa Monica B airport, the FAA saying the FAA had the ultimate authority to decide what operations were safe. However, Santa Monica won the war and the FAA has agreed SM may close the airport after the 20-year "FAA grant 20 year condition" expires. • Questions: Recognizing that FAA concurrence may be required, to what extent may county indirectly limit noise by "discouraging" C and D aircraft from using a B airport by implementing displaced runway thresholds for safety reasons?2 More generally, to what extent may the county (if it wanted to use the ADA proprietary exemption) (i) indirectly limit aircraft using Palomar or (ii) to impose lease conditions related to Palomar use -such as limitation of hours of airport use? Stated differently, does the FAA non-discrimination grant condition apply in the same way to tenants leasing airport property as opposed to simply uninvited aircraft using Palomar? 2 Slide 21 -• As noted at the meeting, the KKR MP project description properly that the stimulus for current FAA cooperation stems from litigation. Similarly, to the extent the FAA is making any NextGen accommodations, the accommodations seem to be made with the cities that have sued the FAA, not otherwise. 2 We understand "displaced thresholds" to mean that although a 4900-foot runway may physically be available for aircraft use, an airport proprietor can artificially move the "runway threshold" by painting lines on the runway so that aircraft landing have less than the full runway length to land the aircraft. As an example, see the discussion of displaced thresholds relating from EMAS installation later in this table. 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 44 of 87 County's MP Contemplated Activities: Physical Palomar Improvements refers to projects to be undertaken but ignores county's expressed intent: to convert Palomar from an FAA ARC B-II airport to a modified D-III airport. • The distinction is relevant for these reasons: Basic o First, Palomar can attract larger, faster, more fuel laden aircraft by economic and convenience strategies. The 2010 SDRAA Regional Airport Strategic Plan (RASP) recognized this. o Second, KKR's analysis did not address the CUP 172 Condition 11 issue, namely county's promise to use Palomar as a "general aviation basic transport" airport. o Third, KKR commented (if my recollection is correct) that it was unfamiliar with FAA airport classifications of "basic" airports. See, however, Appendix C to the 2017-2022 FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Report3 which describes "basic" airports as follows: Provides a means for general aviation flying and link the community to the national airport system. These airports support general aviation activities, such as emergency response, air ambulance service, flight training, and personal flying. Most of the flying at basic airports is self-piloted for business and personal re?lsons using propeller-driven aircraft. They often fulfill their role with a single runway or helipad and minimal infrastructure. • Public owned with 1 0 or more based aircraft or 4 or more based helicopters if a heliport. • Public owned located 30 or more miles from the nearest NPIAS airport. • Owned or serving a Native American community. • Identified and used by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (designated, international or landing rights), U:S. Postal Service (air stops), or has Essential Air Service. • A neW or replac'ement (public owned) airport that has opened within the last 10years. • Unique circumstances related to special aeronautical use. • Fourth, as KKR noted at the meeting, the FAA since at least 1991 has operated not as a General Aviation airport but as a regularly scheduled commercial airport. • Fifth, county's presentation [by its reference of percent of Palomar use by GA aircraft] clearly paints a picture that Palomar remains a general aviation airport. But as KKR notes, it is not. Furthermore, as the FAA definition of basic above indicates, Palomar is not a "general aviation basic transport" airport. ' • In summary, county has remained in breach of CUP 172, Condition 11 for many years, and Carlsbad has never told county that it must apply for a CUP 172 amendment. To the contrary, former City Manager Coates (apparently as a result 3 The report is available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/plaiming capacity/npias/reports/media/NPIAS- Report-2017-2021 -Appendix-C.pdf or by general search on the faa.gov site. Appendix C also defines the very substantial differences between local airports and regional airports. 3 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 45 of 87 of Carlsbad council closed session meetings in 2013) claimed that CUP 172 Table 1 references to "commercial uses" rendered Condition 11 irrelevant. Mr. Coates did not understand that all Table 1 uses were subject to all 11 CUP 172 conditions. Especially disheartening to the public is that the Carlsbad council apparently chose to instruct Mr. Coates in closed session without providing the public an opportunity to comment. We understand that at the time, California Pacific Airlines may have been threatening Carlsbad with suit. The closed session itself was appropriate. But the council's failure to invite public comment on what CUP 172 meant was unforgiveable. Carlsbad did not have an "either/or" choice. It could have done both. Because it did not, Mr. Coates "recantation" of the Carlsbad staff CPA NEPA comments now unfairly prejudices arguments that Carlsbad and/or the public may wish to make. • Notwithstanding the above, we suggest that when Carlsbad formalizes its formal position with county that Carlsbad preserve the Condition 11 issue noted above. Every little bit helps. It is quite possible -given the somewhat ambiguous phrasing of Mr. Coate's letter -that county would not link Condition 11 to it. 3 Slides 23 & 24 • As KKR recognizes, the State Aeronautics Code, Carlsbad MC, and MC§ 21.53.015 SDRAA ALUC McClellan-Palomar Land Use Plan all consider Expansion? runway extensions as airport expansions. Moreover, the common Carlsbad's understanding of the term "expansion" means an increase in major goal capacity. Palomar capacity increases with a 2nd runway or an should be to extended runway. Moreover, courts ultimately focus on the purpose preserve the of a statute. Here, the community motivation was to reduce airport validity of the noise, traffic, pollution and other impacts, all of which occur from a entire new or improved runway. Finally, as Mr. Schertzer noted at the ordinance. meeting, the prior county master plans referred to expansions by way of a new runway or extended runway. It would seem KKR' s tentative position requires review. • We do not understand why KKR would say that -in interpreting MC § 21.53.015 ["Voters' Rights MC or VRMC"]-Carlsbad's overriding principle should be to preserve the validity of the initiative/ ordinance. • As a general principle, KKR gives good advice. But when the facts dictate a different result, a different result follows. Let's look at the pros and cons of preserving VRMC. Relevant questions seem to include: 0 Even if VRMC is preserved, will the county abide by it? Answer: No. As county's PMP expressly states and as KKR 4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 46 of 87 has noted, county asserts sovereign immunity. So why preserve a law that county has avoided/finessed for 35 years? As council members perceptively asked at the meeting, what incentive does the county have to co-operate? It would seem none since county for 35 years has jilted Carlsbad's request to comply with the Carlsbad scenic corridor requirements along the Palomar landfill slopes. 0 lj VRMC disappears, does Carlsbad still have the right to zone areas outside Palomar today as not suitable for airport uses? As KKR pointed out in its presentation, there is an interesting interplay between proprietor rights and host rights. Seems to me there are cases saying that a host city may have the right to preclude certain uses in its territory - notwithstanding the general rule [if applicable] that counties as superior entities can ignore local zoning. It would be helpful for KKR to answer the following question: What rights does any host city including Carlsbad have (in the absence of VRMC) to rezone property outside an airport for no airport uses. IF the answer is: Host cities have this power, than it is irrelevant whether VRMC falls. 0 lf Carlsbad can rezone areas outside the airport for non- airport use, what does that mean? Specifically -as Supervisor Hom said -some supervisors might want to see Palomar cross El Camino Real to the EXISTING county airport northeast comer property. Is KKR suggesting that Carlsbad could preclude that? How and Why? Especially since the FAA would likely argue that county acceptance of past Palomar grants, with at least the implicit consent of Carlsbad, has preserved the Palomar northeast parcel for airport uses, presently over flight? In other words, is KKR offering false hope? It would be helpful for KKR to \ answer the following question: What are the odds of Carlsbad being able to successfully rezone the Palomar northeast ECR and Palomar Airport Road parcel given its past use? 0 Are there significant benefits to a public VRMC vote? As noted at the meeting, the Carlsbad council focus should be on serving its constituents, not on preserving a law that might be invalid. If invalid, so be it. But let Carlsbad residents decide their future. An anti expansion vote sends a clear message to the FAA and could deter the up to 90% FAA funding that the FAA routinely provides.4 A pro expansion vote "ends" the issues.5 4 A brief detour here. Properly, KKR commented on some distinctions between airport safety improvements and capacity improvements. We were pleased to hear these comments, especially as related to county's business reasons for extending the runway. The distinction is EXTREMELY important. To fund AIP (Airport Improvement Program) safety grants, the FAA does not require the airport local sponsor 5 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 47 of 87 0 Are there significant benefits to the VRMC being declared void? This would be a great state bar exam question. Here's why. • The California Government Code requires cities and counties to adopt general plans and zoning. • County operates 8 county airports. Two of them are within cities, including Palomar within Carlsbad. • County has adopted a General Plan -presumably in compliance with the GC. However, county says its GP applies only to unincorporated areas of the county. Accordingly, county's GP applies only to 6 of its airports, namely those in the unincorporated county areas. As a result -even though the county GP adopts many GP policies applicable to airports, these policies appear to apply only to the 6 airports in unincorporated areas. • In other words, as to Palomar operations, county now has the best of both worlds. In theory, Carlsbad GP policies apply, but county says that it has sovereign immunity from Carlsbad zoning and planning authority. And, county avoids its own policies, which apply only to the 6 airports in unincorporated area. Does that present system benefit Carlsbad or its residents? • The foregoing facts lead to some interesting and difficult legal questions. First, does county comply with State GC requirements when it says (i) the county-adopted GP policies do not apply to Palomar and (ii) we the county choose not to comply with Carlsbad GP policies and zoning and (iii) hence California law allows us to operate Palomar Airport, one of the largest county facilities creating significant environmental impacts without restriction and in a legal vacuum? Second- to justify the grant with a Benefit Cost Analysis. In contrast, in theory, county must justify capacity improvements with a BCA. It would be very difficult for county to meet the FAA BCA test for a runway extension. [unless the FAA looks the other way, as it sometimes does to increase U.S. airport capacity]. In short, whether county receives an FAA grant for a 200-foot extension may well depend on whether county can make its "runway extension safety" argument. We presume that a Carlsbad council interested in serving its constituents would ask KKR-when commenting on the county PMP and PMP PEIR (and possibly county FAA project grant applications) -to make the case that KKR made at the Carlsbad council meeting, namely the runway extension is truly a capacity, not safety project. -----in fu or in body add lang re alt factor consideration 5 If Carlsbad proceeds with a VRMC ballot measure, there are interesting questions as to how it should be worded. Presumably, the wording should focus only on the existing county 2018-2038 PMP. Even a favorable community vote should not be taken as agreement to future extensions of Palomar Airport across ECR to the Palomar northeast parcel. 6 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 48 of 87 recognizing that KKR has said that a state Attorney General opinion 6and case law might support a county sovereign immunity argument -do the facts noted in the 1st question above change the standard analysis. For example, can Carlsbad forthrightly assert a position as follows against the county: "County, you had two choices. Voluntarily accept Carlsbad planning and zoning law or adopt county GP policies governing Palomar Airport. But what you county may not do is create a "no man's land" where no regulation applies. To do so, violates state law. You county voluntarily submitted yourself to Carlsbad requirements as indicated by (i) your request for zone and planning changes, (ii) your request for CUP 172, and (iii) your submission of past CUP 172 amendment requests, as when parking areas were added to the airport, and by (iv) failing to apply county GP policies to Palomar although county applies them to 6 other county airports. Furthermore, you induced Carlsbad to annex the airport into the City of Carlsbad in order to receive city services. Accordingly, if county now says it wishes to withdraw its previous voluntary acceptance of Carlsbad requirements, then county must process its new 2018-2038 Palomar Master Plan as an element of the county General Plan and comply with all government code procedural and substantive requirements." • If there is a public vote, should it be structured as "advisory?" The best solution may be Solomon's: split the baby in half. Do not state in the ballot measure that the vote is advisory. But -anticipating a future county argument that VMMC requirements were not triggered because Carlsbad did not have to take a "legislative act"7 -the staff letter recommending a vote could support the request on alternative grounds. Language could be included to the effect "even if the foregoing listed state and local law requirements were determined not to be a legislative act, Carlsbad residents have a right to determine the destiny of their city." o We have already included the foregoing thoughts in our comments on the county PMP and PMP Programmatic EIR, which we are preparing. No doubt county would give more 6 We have read a state AG opinion generally commenting on city-county relative powers in general. But the opinion dealt with a factual situation far removed from the facts of Palomar. 7 See our discussion later in this table as to KKR's tentative view that Carlsbad review of CUP 172 matters are quasi judicial, not legislative. 7 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 49 of 87 weight to the comments ifKKR, a firm of national prominence, also raised the issues. 0 Question: What is the KKR view as to the points above? • Observation: If the goals are to (1) recognize a Carlsbad citizen voice, (2) convey a practical message to the FAA, and (3) avoid the Napoleon County remaining on an isolated regulation-free Palomar island, then it would seem that the guiding principle should not be preserving MC § 21.53.015 if in fact county can so easily avoid it and/or a court would hold it non-binding. 4 Slides 25 & 26 • For the reasons we cited in our February 20, 2018 special council &36 meeting handout (GC §65402(b), PUC§ 21661.6 and PUC§ The MC 21676), it seems apparent that state law requires the Carlsbad 21.53.015 council to act to (i) ensure the county PMP is consistent with the Legislative Act Carlsbad General Plan and to (ii) update the Carlsbad GP if the PMP Requirement is not. Carlsbad records already reflect that the Carlsbad has acted to and SDRAA update its GP to be consistent with airport operations. There is no ALUCLand dispute that an update will be needed. Carlsbad prepared its 2015 Use GP in in 2014 and 2015 when none of the information that county Compatibility now presents in its PMP was available. For instance, Carlsbad had Requirement no way of estimating greenhouse gas emissions related to possibly 500,000 new Palomar Passengers, first carried by plane, then by vehicles to and from the airport. 8 • KKR suggests that even if state law requires the above-noted actions that county may nevertheless adopt its PMP, certify its PMP PEIR, and proceed with PMP projects without Carlsbad approval. • Courts interpreting legal requirements take one of two approaches . What do laws technically require? Or, does the law, as applied, make sense given the statutory purpose in enacting it. • It appears from the laws outlined above that the California legislative intent was to assure that developments around airports would not endanger airport safety or the beneficiaries of airport crashes outside the airport. Example: Don't build a 3-story building (ViaSat?) that might interfere with airport flight paths. By adopting the above noted provisions, the legislature expected host cities to either assure that airport operations were consistent with the host city General Plan and SDRAA ALUC Compatibility Land Use Plan or that the host city take the consequences. 8 We are still confused by the FAA, county, and KKR discussion of the term "passenger enplanements." We understand the term to mean "passenger boardings." Passengers embark and disembark from aircraft. The term "boardings" fuzzes over this distinction. "The point is critical for environmental assessment purposes. If county forecasts 500,000 "passenger enplanements" in the future, will Palomar be handling 500,000 more passengers or 1,000,000 more passengers annually? PMP PEIR commentator comments depend on the correct number. 8 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 50 of 87 • As KKR notes, Carlsbad could fail to update its GP. But the true question under MC§ 21.53.015 is: Would a reasonable reader of MC§ 21.53.015 conclude that the county's adoption of its 2018- 2038 PMP (which sets the course for airport development for the next 20 years and necessarily changes the noise and safety concerns for the land around the airport that Carlsbad controls) triggers an action of the Carlsbad council to update its GP and/or compliance with the SDRAA McClellan-Palomar Land Use Plan. A "technical court" might well agree with KKR. A court looking at the purpose of the laws and MC§ 21.53.015 might well conclude that county proceeds at its peril when it proceeds with Palomar development without first confirming that such development is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. • Finally, KKR's Slide 36 confused us. In part, it says "City update [ of its General P Ian J is not necessary for the Master P Ian implementation." 0 We have empathy for the KKR argument for perhaps an unusual reason. As you know, county under the State Aeronautics Code must obtain a new operating permit from the Chief of the State Division of Aeronautics if County extends the runway. To do so, county must complete the standard Aeronautics form. One form question relates to whether the revised airport configuration conforms to the relevant ALUC Compatibility Land Use Plan. In a logical world, Aeronautics would not issue a permit until this requirement has been satisfied. Based on my discussions with Aeronautics Division staff, it is not clear that Aeronautics has always timely enforced this provision. This is both good news and bad news. Why good news? Because Carlsbad and KKR have suggested that they truly are looking for creative ways to assure proper Palomar regulation. Perhaps one avenue to do so would be for the Carlsbad City Council to adopt a resolution and send it to the Aeronautics Division noting the city's concerns and asking the Aeronautics Division to confirm that it withhold a new operating permit for an extended runway unless and until (1) the SDRAA ALUC updates its McClellan-Palomar Land Use Compatibility Plan and (2) Carlsbad certifies to the Aeronautics Division that Carlsbad has reviewed its General Plan and made the necessary findings to finalize the ALUC LUCP process. Why bad news (as to concerned citizens)? Because the Aeronautics Division history does give some credence to the KKR concern that county could blithely adopt the PMP and proceed with PMP projects. 0 Note that the above comments could perhaps equally apply to county requests for FAA project funding. Presumably, the FAA would react positively to a Carlsbad council 9 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 51 of 87 resolution to the effect: "We understand that county has applied for Palomar Airport grants to extend its runway. Palomar Airport is located within the city of Carlsbad. The SDRAA ALUC has not yet prepared an updated MP Compatibility Land Use Plan to assure that P MP project operations will be compatible with existing and future buildings around the airport. Accordingly, grant monies for qualifying projects should only be released after the California and Carlsbad land use requirements have been met. Please recall that the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act recognizes the superior role of local entities in land use matters." Our comment simply responds to the Carlsbad and KKH claims that Carlsbad and the community should seek creative solutions to the issues. 0 There may be yet a 3rd way for Carlsbad to raise its General Plan and ALUC CLUP issue. Based on reviewing the PUC provisions and discussing them with the SDRAA ALUC staff, we understand that an ALUC update can be triggered in one of two ways: Either by county submitting a revised Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to staff or by Carlsbad raising General Plan issues. It appears that historically, county airports ignores the CLUP process by not timely, if ever, submitting an updated ALP. Working with the ALUC, Carlsbad could perhaps by a council resolution express its desires that the ALUC require the county to submit its revised ALP to the ALUC as soon as the FAA approves it so that the CLUP process begins sooner than later. 0 Finally, we return to our initial comment: We do not understand KKR's automatic conclusion that Carlsbad review of its General Plan is not necessary when county prepares, circulates, and then adopts a new 20-year plan. The rights of governmental entities depend in part on the rights they assert. Usually, a court accords wide discretion to an entity's claim. There seems ample basis for Carlsbad to assert, given the code sections previously cited, that the public is adequately protected with an airport expansion entirely within the city of Carlsbad if and only if Carlsbad and the ALUC first complete the required statutory processes. As KKR noted in passing, Carlsbad past history suggests Carlsbad has failed to act timely and aggressively to protect citizen interests. For Carlsbad to today concede that the county can build PMP improvements without completion of the GP and the ALUC processes seems timid indeed. 5 Slides 27-32 • Several years ago, by personal comments at a Carlsbad city council CUP 172 Issues meeting and by letter, I advised the city council that CUP 1 72 Table 1 had first been prepared by the county in 1979 and then modified by Carlsbad to delete the county's reference to runway extensions. I 10 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 52 of 87 was not aware at that time that in about 1997 -when processing of the 1997-2017 county PMP was being discussed-that county again tried to revise Table 1 to reinsert the reference to runway extension. It is unfortunate that KKR was not advised of these facts before preparing its slides. The noted omitted information is of course critical and contradicts KKR's tentative conclusion. This "SNAFU" is but one indication of why the public has a problem with Carlsbad council members, not the staff, which is usually excellent. For instance, questions community members discuss among themselves include: Why has Carlsbad had such a frequent turnover of City Managers, all of whom seem to have excellent qualifications. One theory circulated is that the Mayor tries to micromanage City Manager duties and even other council members and too often contradicts the wise recommendations of staff. The most recent example occurred at yesterday's February 20, 2018 special meeting when no one on the council would second the motion of Councilwoman Cori Schumacher to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to address Palomar matters, especially the scheduling of an MC§ 21.53.015 election. Apparently the Mayor forgets that actions speak louder than words. Council members cannot credibly on the one hand gnash their teeth as to how soon an MC§ 21.53.015 measure can be placed on the ballot and then "slow-walk" the process by torpedoing an ad hoc committee that could expedite the process, consistent with Brown Act requirements. • The noted slides ignore the issue of county's unapproved transition of Palomar from a "general aviation basic transport" airport to a "regularly scheduled commercial service" airport. As noted above, the FAA has long recognized the concept of basic general aviation airports and county continues to expand the commercial operations by the 2018-2038 PMP. • The noted slides also too easily accept the county contention that the airport PMP projects remain within existing Palomar borders. Assume for the moment either (i) the proposed massive retaining walls require a sliver of 3rd party property [ as we have heard they might] or (ii) a county runway extension or relocation requires relocation of FAA navigational aids including lighting. We did hear KKH say something to the effect that the county project includes only items the county can control, not other items such as those of the FAA. IF we heard this comment correctly, KKR confuses CEQA environmental comment scopes with project scopes. California law may well limit the environmental impacts that a project sponsor must assess to those within its control. But an airport is an integrated unit. Either aircraft can land safety in accordance with FAA design requirements or they cannot. 11 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 53 of 87 If a county runway extension on the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road requires modification to FAA navigational aids on the northeast corner of ECR and PAR, county has undertaken a project, which requires physical installation of facilities on both sides of ECR. It is irrelevant that the FAA may pay for and/or do the northeast corner work. The work was needed solely because county extended the runway. Accordingly, the KKR final report needs to address this issue. County has a long history of saying things and/or agreeing to things that somehow never materialize. Example: County since 1996 has failed to meet the RWQCB landfill contaminant improvement objectives and has yet to submit a plan to do so. How reliable can county representations be when it agrees to a RWQCB Order in 1996 and 21 years later has failed to satisfy it? At a minimum, Carlsbad's comments on the PMP, PMP projects, and PEIR should require county to (i) represent that its retaining walls do not require any third party property and if they do, county will immediately report such need to Carlsbad and (ii) disclose all FAA and other improvements that will be needed off site to implement Palomar runway extensions. If county is uncooperative, Carlsbad should discuss the issue with FAA staff. • For the foregoing reasons, the KKR CUP 172 analysis is incomplete and inconsistent with the facts. • Finally, please note that due to KKR's tentative conclusion (i.e. there is no CUP 172 expansion), KKR has not ( except indirectly) reached the ultimate issue. If county did ask for a CUP 172 amendment (for instance to extend the runway), could and would Carlsbad deny the request? We recognize this issue raises the county "sovereign immunity claim." 6 Slide 33 • At yesterday's meeting, we understood KKR to say that county Does a CUP would likely argue that a county request for a CUP 172 amendment, Amendment perhaps to extend the runway, would be a Carlsbad "quasi-judicial" trigger a act, not a "legislative act. Fair point. But again KKR concedes the Carlsbad point too quickly. legislative act and hence MC § • The question of what CUP 172 Table 1 means and what the term 21.53.015? "expansion" means may well be a quasi-judicial act. In other words, when Carlsbad looks at the issue, Carlsbad acts somewhat as a judge and decides what an existing agreement does or does not allow. • In contrast, Carlsbad could add a new use to the CUP 172 Table 1 only if it exercises its zoning power. The issue switches from interpretation of an old agreement to the creation of a new agreement. • When looking at this issue in the past, we came away with the 12 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 54 of 87 impression that the determining factor (quasi-judicial v. legislative) focused on how limited the focus of a CUP was, how long the CUP lasted, the scope of the issues covered, and the significance of the issues. A CUP for a liquor store or even a strip mall has limited community impacts. A CUP with unlimited term for an airport impacting 100,000 to 300,000 residents is another matter. The ability of governmental entities to "delegate" their powers is limited. The Carlsbad council may not simply leave in the hands of a planning commission the determination of proper zoning uses that impacts the entire city perpetually. • REQUEST: It would be helpful for KKR to address the issues above in its final report and cite relevant authority. 7 Slide 37 • The slide, as supplemented by KKR meeting comments, says that Carlsbad as a Carlsbad is not a CEQA responsible agency because county does not CEQA list Carlsbad as such and because Carlsbad has no discretionary Responsible authority over the county. We have two concerns with this Agency comment. 0 Why would Carlsbad want to indirectly concede a legal issue in dispute. County says it has sovereign immunity. For the reasons above, Carlsbad can argue that unless and until county withdraws from CUP 172 and complies with state law to adopt county general plan policies for Palomar that Carlsbad does have discretion over county. Otherwise, why did county apply for CUP 172B? 0 In addition, we believe that county in the past has itself conceded that its sovereign immunity claims extend to county improvements but not to tenant improvements on the premises. Does KKH agree? If so, doesn't the PMP propose both types of improvement including relocation of tenant buildings.9 0 Finally, as to the Palmar ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) services that Carlsbad provides, we understand that Carlsbad in the past has reserved to itself the decision of what level of services to provide at what time. • For the foregoing reasons, it seems inadvisable to concede that Carlsbad is not a responsible CEQA agency within the meaning of the statute. Request: It would be helpful for KKR to address the above issues. 8 Slide 38 What • KKH did not discuss the possibility of Carlsbad filing a declaratory else can relief action. End the agony. Let a court decide the issues above. Carlsbad do? That way parties (i) have certainty and (ii) know the issues have been resolved objectively, not by hidden council member motives. Acknowledge the famous legal principle: What is, is and what will 9 We recognize that building code requirements are classed as "ministerial" not discretionary requirements. But couldn't Carlsbad require a Palomar tenant installing fuel tanks to obtain a discretionary permit, conditioned on certain information, related to spills of hazardous materials and clean up of contamination? 13 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 55 of 87 be, will be. • Zoning to reduce encroachment. KKR needs to flesh out the issues we raised above. The zoning suggestion may have considerable merit or absolutely no merit. Does Carlsbad really want to substitute one uncertainty and one dispute for another one? • Fly Friendly/Voluntary Noise Abatement (VNAP). KKR noted that other jurisdictions have had success with VNAP programs when aggressively pursued. We see little if any chance of this approach working at Palomar for the following reasons (which we encourage KKH to address in its final report): o Pilot Privacy Laws. Enforcing VNAP depends on identifying aircraft, pilots, and owners. We understand that pilots and owners in the past have relied on "pilot privacy" statutes to avoid their identification. To what extent is this a California problem? o Federal Preemption: FAA Control of Air Space & Next Gen. It seems unlikely that the FAA will agree to limit or redirect flights when the whole purpose of its new NexGen program is to reduce flight time on airport approaches and distribute flights to do so. o CNEL v. SNEL: The FAA and county consistently rely on the 24 hour noise averaging provisions of CNEL and the limited airport CNEL airport contours. In short, the FAA and County ignore Single Noise Event Limits. Hence, residents removed from the airport noise contour have no sympathy from the FAA or county. We have discussed this issue with an airport attorney having 3 0 years of experience with airport noise issues. He/She says: Focus on California case law related to Single Noise Events. For this reason, we request that the KKH final report address this issue, which is most likely relevant to KKH comments on the PMP PEIR noise discussion. o County history of non-cooperation. Need we repeat the saying: Only insane people keep hitting their head against the wall. If Carlsbad for 35 years has been unable to obtain county scenic corridor compliance, a much more visible and offensive blight, why would KKH think that the public could achi1tve more? o Examples of Past Success. Notwithstanding the foregoing comments, it would be helpful for KKR to provide the names and contact information for at least three entities roughly comparable to Carlsbad and Palomar in size who have had success with their "aggressive programs." • Using the FAA Part 150 Noise Program Procedure. As KKR noted, the FAA does periodically fund Part 150 Noise Studies. As we recall, the FAA and county conducted a 150 study in the 14 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 56 of 87 mid 2000s. We have read it, but not recently. The FAA accepted perhaps half of the suggestions made. As we recall, the FAA rejected mandatory measures and certain flight path restrictions. Again, a good news, bad news story. Bad news because, unless KKR can point to factors that would change the FAA mind, jumping through the FAA hoops seems an exercise in futility. The likely first FAA objection to spending money would be: Why should we fund a program for a PMP, which projects 30% less operations in the future? Good news? Now, if the FAA were motivated to implement mandatory measures -such as by a Carlsbad resident vote against airport expansion -the bargaining powers of the parties might change. • The 1990 Airport Noise Capacity Act (ANCA). KKR has not suggested this alternative, perhaps because the needed facts are not as strong as desirable. We understand ANCA to say that if a local airport adopted noise limitations for an airport before 1990(?), then the airport may continue such limitations on a going forward basis. Here are our thoughts on a creative but admittedly difficult way to implement Palomar noise limitations ( assuming the FAA is sufficiently motivated by a Carlsbad resident opposition to airport expansion). o County apparently prior to 1990 did implement some noise limitation measures at Palomar. At some point, they "evaporated." Not sure when. o County did agree in 1979/1980 in CUP 172 that Palomar would remain a "general aviation basic transport" airport. It could be argued by a nationally recognized airport litigation firm that such an agreement imposed noise restrictions by limiting the aircraft that Palomar could serve. o Yes, the FAA could easily dismiss this approach -unless it were properly motivated. Bottom line: KKR asked for creativity. Go for it. IfKKR pursues this issue, we assume you will want to speak with Dan Frazee, one of the current P AAC members, who has a long history of airport noise evaluation. He would also be an excellent source to discuss aggressively pursuing VNAP. We would expect him to dismiss our ANCA approach and quite possibly the aggressive VNAP approach. o How do you motivate the FAA? One way is a MC §21.53.015 vote. Another way may be as follows: • As you know, FAA grants include many standard grant assurances. One assurance states that a local airport sponsor will not use airport property for non- airport uses without prior Secretary of Transportation permission. • For 14 years in the 1960s and 1970s, county 15 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 57 of 87 9 Slide 39 Working with the County by participating in the NEPA process. operated 3 landfills on Palomar Airport and deposited about 1 million cu yards of mainly household trash but also some contaminated trash. • As you likely know, federal law allows statutorily defined stakeholders to challenge airport grants. Private citizens may not fall in the stakeholder category but Carlsbad may. • The obvious question is: Why should the FAA be granting county more monies when (i) county violated multiple grant assurances for 14 years, (ii) the landfills attracted birds near air carrier operations thereby endangering them, and (iii) the landfills created have increased the cost of extending the Palomar runway 10 fold due to piling requirements, have created methane gas emissions which endanger tenant operations, and have created ongoing settlement -all of which have caused county to reduce its lease rents to impacted tenants. • Can Carlsbad use the foregoing information to the advantage of Carlsbad residents to motivate changes in FAA and/or county cooperation? REQUEST: It would be helpful if KKR could address the issues in its final report. FYI: Independently of the PJVIP and PJVIP PEIR process, we will be raising the above issues with the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) and the federal General Accountability Office (GAO) and the DOT Inspector General, which are the agencies charged with enforcing the 2010, 2012, and 2015 acts often collectively referred to as the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA). In essence, we will assert that FAA AIP grants to county for the PJVIP projects do not meet the various FAA substantive requirements and hence such grants would be improper payments within the meaning ofIPERA. Not an issue I'm suspect that KKR has any interest in. • We were not clear on why NEPA, rather than CEQA was being referenced. CEQA is the ongoing process. We have been curious as to whether and when the FAA would also require a NEPA process. For instance, would a county FAA grant application trigger a NEPA process. REQUEST: It would be helpful if KKR could address this issue in its final report. END 2018 Bender Supp Comments on Kirsch Carlsbad CC Mtg feb 21 16 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 58 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please see attached Thank you, Graham R. Thorley SaveCarlsbad.com Graham Thorley Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:39 PM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Cori Schumacher; Michael Schumacher; Manager Internet Email; Celia Brewer; City Clerk; Jason Haber Comment on Feb 20, 2018 City Council Meeting Responce to Council regarding Feb 20 2018 Meeting.pdf 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 59 of 87 To: Mayor Matt Hall, Council Members Keith Blackburn, Mark Packard, Cori Schumacher, Michael Schumacher, City Manager Kevin Crawford, City Attorney Celia Brewer and City Clerk Barbara Engleson and Assistant to the City Manger Jason B. Haber From: Graham Thorley@ Subject: February 20, 2018 Council Meeting Agenda #3 -County Airport Master Plan and Ordinance 21.53.015 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 Date: February 25, 2018 In the words of the 1966 Buffalo Springfield song, 11 There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. 11 But after the February 20th City Council meeting the puzzle is rapidly falling into place and explains why there has only been a one way public conversation about the airport with no responding effort from Carlsbad's long term City Council Members. During that meeting, three and a half hours were spent watching a County 52 minute video and Kaplan Kirsh Rockwell (KKR) talking about the power of the FAA and the County over Carlsbad. BUT, very little time discussing if Carlsbad's Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 and Ordinance 21.53.015 (Ordinance) gave its Carlsbad citizens the right to VOTE. More disturbing was the Council's final discussion, the City Attorney suggested ---if Carlsbad was to hold a vote, it would only be an advisory (non binding) vote. Talk about missing the message from the public in attendance who overwhelmingly reiterated they adamantly want their Constitutional Rights upheld and wanted their right to VOTE. Throughout the whole meeting it became obvious only Council Member C. Schumacher seems to understand the impact to our community by Bill Horn's statement "Big Huge Commercial Enterprise Airport" and the lack of honesty in the County's new Master Plan. Given that fact, it begs the question WHY is Council Member C. Schumacher the only one seemingly recognizing the potential negative impact an expanding airport will create in Carlsbad? Furthermore, the Council seems to not be upholding its fiduciary responsibility to proactively protect Carlsbad citizens. This is not brain surgery, just look at residential communities worldwide surrounding large commercial airports ---ALL have been negatively impacted. Concerning the KKR Airport 101 presentation, it was informative, but and this is a BIG BUT, it failed to even mention the simplest of facts "The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990." In doing so the public were not informed that act prohibits flight hour restrictions be implemented at any airport that did not already have restrictions in place prior to the passage of the act. To compound that omission, Peter Kirsch went on to say all Carlsbad needs to do is talk to the FAA and restrictions could be implemented. What a misleading statement. March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 60 of 87 Additionally, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding by KKR of Carlsbad's and the County's history. For instance: 1. County's F-6 policy describes and states ---for any County owned land in any incorporated city within San Diego County, the County will comply with that city's zoning laws. 2. Carlsbad's definition of expansion in 21.04.140.1 "Expansion means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including the physical size of the property, building, parking or other improvements (ORD. CS-050 § 11, 2009). 3. In 2009, the County submitted an amendment to CUP to expand the airport parking lot. Therefore, it must be concluded the County acted only because it recognized Carlsbad's authority in this expansion request. Further compounding the above was Mr. Kirsch further suggesting -all the community needs to do is become proactive and talk to the airport and the FAA. This statement shows a complete lack of knowledge on what the community has done over the last 20 years to proactively solve the airport noise -See Page 3 for community proactive attempts to solve the issues. Given those facts, KKR expansion conversation seemed to be playing down the importance of the Ordinance and CUP. WHY? It also has to be stated with the above, the KKR presentation was at best premature and brings up an important question ---why was this legal discussion presented in an open forum? Was the Council covertly communicating with County that Carlsbad will not be taking action to protect its citizens? That said, I cannot believe after 18 or more years of Council inaction on the airport issue, the City hires a law firm to study the Ordinance and CUP without also holding a meeting between KKR and the citizens in the community who are well educated in this matter. I do not know how much the City is paying KKR for its time, but whatever has been spent to disprove the impact the Ordinance and CUP, now obviously seems to have been a waste of taxpayers' money. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying any blame falls on KKR's shoulders. I am saying the City is at fault or more specifically the City Council. After dealing with and managing consultants for more than 30 years, the first thing any consultant does is determine what the client is or is not trying to accomplish. In this case, it seems the direction from the Carlsbad politicians is an attempt to downplay the power of the Ordinance, CUP and history and KKR did exactly that. This opinion is further substantiated by the lack of action by the Council in the meeting. After all the public speakers presented their facts on an issue that has the potential to February 20, 2018 Council Meeting Agenda #3 Page 2 of4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 61 of 87 destroy Carlsbad's life style forever, any normal person looking for the truth would automatically be interested in learning more about what was presented by the public. BUT our Council just sat there and: • Asked NO FOLLOW UP questions. • Never asked for a follow-up meeting to learn additional facts. • Promptly cut speakers off immediately when the allotted time to speak had expired. In my case, if Mayor Hall had only given me 3 seconds more the City would have learned how the County airport expansion will reduce Carlsbad's tax revenues by $30 million. Therefore, let me further expand what I would have said and why Carlsbad will lose $30 million in tax revenue: • Based on the now proven 1994 FAA and the 1997 Orange County (OC) airport noise impact reports --for every 1% increase in average noise decibel level, property values will drop 1.35% ---example per the OC study, a conservative 20 dB(A) increase in noise will = a 27% drop in ALL (Residential and Industrial) property values. Applying that to Carlsbad's 2018 budget, that means Carlsbad could see about $30 million decrease in property tax revenues, not to mention the loss of tourist spending. • Carlsbad's homeowners will be devastated by their property devaluation and banks could call a number of loans as they did during the Great Recession. That said, let's talk about Council Member C. Schumacher's motion to have the City form an ad hoc committee to help KKR fully and quickly understand the issues, potentially saving the City large sums of money. Again it became perfectly clear with no other Council member sheepishly not seconding Council Member C. Schumacher's motion, the Council had no interest in finding out the truth or protecting its citizens from a disastrous airport expansion. Again WHY? Regarding KKR suggestion ---all the communities need to attempt working with the County and the airport to solve the noise issues, the following is only a very short list of what the communities have done over the years attempting to work with the County and the airport: 1. On Noise Complaints -as I stated in my public presentation, in 2015, Palomar received approximately 2,800 noise complaints and 2017 complaints increased to 4,523 and NextGEN is not yet fully implemented at Palomar. When NextGEN is implemented, like San Diego International, Phoenix and a lot more airport communities , Palomar can expect a tenfold increase in aircraft noise complaints. 2. When the airport and the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC) was asked what do they with the aircraft noise complaints, the answer is consistently nothing, we archive them -we are only interested in trending information. February 20, 2018 Council Meeting Agenda #3 Page 3 of4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 62 of 87 To put this in perspective, per the White House Consumer Affairs Office, for every complaint, 23 are impacted and never take the time to complain, e.g.: The airport's total noise complaints from 2007 thru to 2017 (a full 10 year period) = approximately 44,823 total complaints. Multiply that number by the 23 who did not complain and that will = 1,030,929 persons actual impacted by the aircraft noise. Additionally, during the council's discussion on the new Bressi Ranch Shea Project, Council Member Packard insultingly commented to the public --do not come to me and complain about aircraft noise when you buy a home next to an airport, all I will say is -REALL VI In this case ---all the airport does is archive the records -REALLY! 3. Include Aborted Landing Numbers in the Airport's Monthly Reports -in August 2016, after witnessing continual GO Arounds (Aborted Landings) over schools, playgrounds and homes, a written request was submitted for the airport to include aborted landing numbers in the monthly PAAC reports. The written request was denied. 4. Controlling Noise Levels at Takeoff -In September 2016, I submitted a six page proposal to the PAAC on how we can control aircraft noise on takeoff. My proposal was to have Palomar adopt Santa Monica's aircraft takeoff noise levels procedures and penalties. Even though (every three months or so), I continually ask when are we going to discuss my proposal, the PAAC refuses to place this item on the agenda. In fact the PAAC has gone as far as to say ---it has no procedure for accepting anything to be placed on the agenda from the public. 5. Numerous other request attempting to work with the airport have been denied, These include a request from the Vista City Council to the FAA. The request was it move the landing paths away for residential areas and back over still vacant property. The FAA refused that request. 6. In 2002, FAA, the Airport and the Community met to solve the aircraft noise issue. Lot of promises made, but 16 years later the noise has increased and none of the promises have been honored. In fact, per the PAAC, we just archive them. The 1980 Ordinance and CUP were passed into law because Carlsbad citizens did not want the airport to ever expand beyond what it was at that time. However, the 1980 Council did allow for an airport expansion, but only with a majority VOTE of the Carlsbad electorate. The Ordinance and CUP are LAW. Therefore, the LAW demands that the majority of Carlsbad electorate VOTE to allow an airport expansion before any airport expansion can take place. This means a real VOTE not an advisory vote. February 20, 2018 Council Meeting Agenda #3 Page 4 of4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 63 of 87 Jason Haber From: Council Internet Email Sent: Cc: Monday, February 26, 2018 9:16 AM Jason Haber Subject: FW: Vote Against Airport Expansion -----Original Message----- From: Carrie Bedard [mailto:c Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:58 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Vote Against Airport Expansion To all Council Members and the Mayor Please vote against the airport expansion. I live in 92011 on Nepeta Way and have lived in that zip code for over 12 years as a home owner. Please vote against the airport expansion. Caroline Bedard 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 64 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sheila Cobian Sent: To: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:25 AM Jason Haber Cc: Morgen Fry Subject: FW: McClellan-Palomar Airport Importance: High Hi Jason, More correspondence to be added as an exhibit to the March 13 staff report. Thank you, Cicyof Carlsbad Sheila Cobian, CMC City Clerk Services Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-434-2917 I sheila.cobian@carlsbadca.gov Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews From: Celia Brewer Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:11 AM To: Kris Wright < Cc: Sheila Cobian <Sheila.Cobian@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Re: McClellan-Palomar Airport Hi Kris, I am glad you found the presentation helpful. Some of your questions were answered in the presentation. I appreciate your feedback about wanting more dialog with experts on the airport issue. I hope there will be more to come on that subject as we move forward. 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 65 of 87 Every member of the public can comment on the draft EIR and the comment letter contact information for the county is on our website. I believe the comment period officially ends on 3/19, but we will be considering the city staff comment letter on the draft EIR at our meeting on 3/13 and a draft of the city letter will be released with the staff report the Friday before the meeting. I have copied the city clerk on this issue to preserve the public record on the airport master plan issue. I hope this helps. Best, Celia Celia A. Brewer City Attorney From: Kris Wright < Date: Monday, February 26, 2018 at 11:44 PM To: Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: McClellan-Palomar Airport Hi Celia, As you know I spoke at the City Council meeting concerning the expansion/vote issue. I wanted to thank you for bringing in such a group of such well renown attorneys to advise our city. After hearing them I realize that some of their suggestions such as preserving the vote (Ordinance 21.53.015) to make it stronger, that I would be interested in learning more about these issues. Since these are experts on airports and Land Use, I have thought of a few questions that I would like to discuss with you and them in an informal setting. I am interested in learning how to make our laws stronger, and, since the EIR public response is now going on, I'd like to hear some of their views on how we as a public and I as a stake holder could f effectively comment, in other words, I would be interested in finding out what they view as important points in the proposed airport master plan that could be challenged. I have been trying to understand regular EIR's for developments, but have no experience with Airport El R's. I also am interested in successes that they have had with cities like us who are a Charter city, if that makes any difference in dealing with the County with their concerns in expanding the airport. I am interested in knowing what triggers a vote (for our ordinance), and their thoughts about making our zoning laws stronger. Is there a way to meet? Thanks for all you do, 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 66 of 87 Kris Kris Wright 3 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 67 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Jason, Council Internet Email Friday, March 02, 2018 10:09 AM Jason Haber FW: McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Does anyone else need to receive this besides Council and you? Morgen -----Original Message----- From: sonck4@ Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 8:28 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Good morning, Thank you all for your interest and review of the County's updated proposed master plan for the airport. I look forward to attending Cori Schumacher's community forum at Alga Park next Tuesday. That being said, I'd like to air my main, on going issue with the operations and operators at the airport; specifcally the Voluntary Noise Abatement Policy (VNAP). I have resided in my current residence at Torreyanna Circle since July 2005. I can state with accuracy that for the first 2-3 years residents had no issues with airport noise, but about the time the national economy collapsed in 2008, clearly there was negative change of action from pilots, and I'm referring specifically to propeller driven planes. Suddenly VNAP violations increased dramatically, most of offenders seemingly being flight schools. I can witness from my backyard the same planes performing "touch and go" practice, and upon takeoff, immediately banking south from the runway, low over nearby homes, including mine, every 5-6 minutes at 3-4 touch and go engagements at a time. Private pilot offenders are also high. The noise is bad enough, but it the safety of those of us on the ground that is paramount. One plane crashing into a neighborhood could take countless lives! Jets are of no concern. They follow VNAP consistently. Complaints logged by residents to that useless County Airport Authority Director, Peter Drinkwater, are either ignored or brushed aside as "one offs". The Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC), led by a number of members such as Chuck Collins who have vested business interests at the airport, are condescending, pompous, and ignorant ...... and I'm being kind using those adjectives to describe that entire lot! What is most appalling is the claim made by both the County and local airport officials that they have no authority to make the VNAP a mandatory one; that only the FAA can do so. That's a complete and utter lie, and they know it! I have spoken with Ian Gregor of the FAA on two occasions, and he has always directed me to the FAA Aviation Noise Ombudsman, and to follow the process as noted (see link below). https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/airport_aircraft_noise_issues/noise/ Mr. Gregor also informed me that specific to VNAP and any request to making it mandatory, the County and City of Carlsbad could together assemble a formal, written request to the FAA. The FAA would in turn review and consult with both the County and City for resolution. The PAAC and San Diego County Airport Authority are more than aware of this process; neither will move to engage with residents, the City or FAA. 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 68 of 87 No need to respond to this communication. My intent is simply to make you aware of the fact there is recourse that can be taken to residents' noise, safety and all airport concerns. There is simply apathy on the part of San Diego County Airport Authority and the PAAC to take any action. They have a cozy, mutually beneficial relationship that they do not want altered. Please go on public record as AGAINST the revised master plan AND put it to a public vote! Thank you! Don Sonck Carlsbad 92011 Mobile: 7 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 69 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Council Internet Email Monday, March 05, 2018 10:14 AM Jason Haber FW: comments re PEIR for Palomar master plan SVC ltr re Program EIR 3-3-18.pdf From: Stephanie [mailto: Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 3:48 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov Subject: comments re PEIR for Palomar master plan Good afternoon, Ms. Curtis and members of the Carlsbad City Council - Attached is my letter, representing South Vista Communities and residents of Vista, regarding the Program EIR for the McClellan-Paloma r Master Plan. Stephanie Jackel 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 70 of 87 2 about the off-airport impacts including noise and air quality. The issues have been raised, but are not identified, or responded to, in the PEIR. Table S-2, Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures (p. S-10 ), does not include any reference to air quality. Additionally, impacts of noise in this table are all related to construction, none to the impacts of the planes operating out of the airport. In Chapter I (p. 1-1), you carefully absolve the County from any responsibility for negative impacts of airplane overflights --... the County has no authority over the quantity, type, or flight track of an aircraft arriving or departing from the airport, which are under the jurisdiction of the FAA. However, the negative impacts of airplane overflights will only increase with the expansion of the airport which the County is proposing for an airport owned by the County and operated by the County. The County is providing the cause of increased negative impacts; therefore the County has to accept responsibility for the inevitable effects. Chapter 2-Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project (p. 2-1) The purpose of this section is to determine whether implementation of the proposed Airport Master Plan would result in significant environmental impacts ... in the surrounding environment. 2-4. Noise (p. 2-73) 2.4.1. Existing Conditions -Noise Settings notes that The closest residential land uses to the Airport are located a half-mile to the southeast ... Additional residential land uses can be found further south ... This statement entirely ignores the many residential areas of Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, and even Escondido located east of the airport; these areas are already significantly impacted by noise of airplane overflights and this will increase with the greater number of larger airplanes proposed. 2.4.1. Noise Sources (p. 2-74): Cites ... aircraft noise due to potential growth in operations and commercial airline service. An ambient noise survey evidently was conducted; none of the noise measurement locations used, according to this document, was in Vista. Also a noise measurement period of 15 minutes is not long enough to be meaningful. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the measurement metric used in California. What is the current CNEL for Vista? CNEL is a single number result that is calculated for a complete 24-hour period and usually made up of results taken at shorter intervals such as 5 minutes or 1 hour and then averaged over the whole 24 hours. This averaging over 24 hours is an inadequate and incomplete measurement. Including the hours when no planes are flying overhead in the calculations dilutes the impact of the very busy hours when many planes are approaching McClellan-Palomar airport. Thus, the averaged noise level number is low and within allowable levels, but does not tell the true story. Our ears hear each individual flight, not a daily average of flights. March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 72 of 87 This CNEL average will not begin to give you the true picture of the noise levels harrowing the lives of Vista residents. The burning question is, how will these noise levels be measured? To date, we understand, the noise levels are extrapolated from the airplane manufacturers' information. That tells you only what the airplane manufacturers believe or think they know. 2.4.1. Regulatory Setting, Federal Order 1050.lF (p. 2-75): The FAA has determined that the 24-hour cumulative exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of yearly day/night average sound level. What is the current CNEL for Vista? 2.4.1. County of San Diego (p.2-76): The County has established exterior and interior CNEL standards for residential uses. What is the current CNEL for Vista? 3 2.4.2. Analysis of Project Effects and ... Significance (p. 2-78): Day/Night Noise Level (DNL) is also a measurement of noise. Page 2-78 states, A significant impact from (aircraft) noise would occur if the project would: 1. Cause noise sensitive areas located at or above DNL 65 dB to experience a noise increase ... An increase from DNL 63.5 dB to DNL 65 dB over a noise sensitive area is a significant impact. What is the current and projected DNL for Vista? 2.4.2. Analysis (p.2-79): Discussion of noise sensitive areas and noise contours. None of the noise contours include Vista, which is absolutely experiencing aircraft noise. 2.4.6 Conclusion (p. 2-86): Noise impacts associated with future aircraft operations and operations of the airport would be less than significant. This is nonsense. You may have determined this AT the airport site itself. The noise levels in Vista neighborhoods have not been monitored or measured, so this statement cannot be made. Chapter 3 -Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant (p. 3-1) Executive Summary, Draft Air Qµality Technical Report, Appendix F. pp. vi-vii. This report presents an assessment of current air quality conditions and whether potential impacts would occur involving criteria pollutant emissions related to implementation of the Airport Master Plan at McClellan-Palomar Airport ... Neither construction nor operation of the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors or result in a significant odor impact. However, three San Diego County Air Pollution Control District monitoring stations are listed in Appendix F -Camp Pendleton, Del Mar, and McClellan-Palomar Airport. None of these is as far east as Vista ( or San Marcos or Escondido) and therefore it can be concluded that air quality in Vista has not been and is not being monitored. The roof, patio cover, and plants at my house in Vista have been covered in black gunk ever since low-flying aircraft began flying directly over my neighborhood in 2013. 3.1.2. Air Qµality (p. 3-9) The information and analysis in this section have been compiled based on the Air Quality Impact Technical Report prepared for the project by C&S Engineers, Inc. (Appendix F). 3.1.2.3 Analysis of Project Effects and Determination as to Significance (p. 3-14) The significance thresholds for air quality are based on criteria provided in the County's Guidelines for Determining Significance for Air Qiality. March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 73 of 87 4 Operation (p. 3-17) Emissions from the forecasted increase in aircraft operations over the 20-year planning period were calculated using AEDT [Aviation Environmental Design Tool] ... Emissions above the mixing level height (3,000 ft. above ground level) would not be expected to impact regional air quality and, thus, emissions for the flight operations above the mixing height are not calculated within AEDT. The PEIR is not clear about the term "ground level." Altitude measurements, according to McClellan-Palomar Airport staff, are based on height above sea level. Many aircraft fly at 1,000 or 1,500 feet above houses on Vista hillsides; their altitude based on sea level may well be above the mixing level height, but not when measured as the distance above these houses. Therefore, emissions for flight operations above these houses have not been measured. Emissions must be measured on the ground in the flight paths of the aircraft approaches to the airport over the neighborhoods in Vista. 3.1.7 Land Use and Planning (p. 3-81) The following analysis describes existing land uses and policies associated with the Proposed Project site and within its vicinity. 3.1.7.1 Existing Conditions (p. 3-81) ... this PEIR only addresses land use and planning analysis associated with the 231-acre Airport Master Plan Update area. Therefore, this PEIR is totally inadequate. To correctly address land use and impacts from airport/aircraft, the PEIR must include the residential areas to the north and east which are now, and will increasingly be, impacted. 3.1.7.1.2 Relevant Policies, Ordinance, and Adopted Plans State and Local Requirements -Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: The purpose of the Airport's ALUCP is to ensure compatibility between adjacent land uses and the operation and/or improvements to the Airport. One function of the ALUCP is to address existing and future noise levels and how the surrounding land uses may be impacted. (p. 3-84) The Airport Influence Area does not extend far enough north and east to include the impacts of aircraft approaching the airport . • 3.1.7.2.2. Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: The purpose of the ALUCP is to provide land use measures that ensure the safety and welfare of the public is protected from excessive noise and safety hazards associated with aviation by discouraging incompatible development in areas surrounding airports. (p. 3-91) The residential communities of Vista (and Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Escondido) existed, for the most part, prior to the development of McClellan-Palomar Airport. It is the airport (aircraft overflights) that is incompatible with existing residential neighborhoods. Chapter 4 -Project Alternatives (p. 4-1) It is also important to identify that recommended airfield improvements are solely based on accommodating existing and projected aircraft operations and are not contingent on scheduled commercial activity in any way. Commercial airline activity has been housed at McClellan-Palomar Airport, off and on, for many years. Why is commercial activity not being considered in the PEIR? March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 74 of 87 6 To give voice to what we are experiencing, I am including a few of numerous comments from Vista residents: My home is not near the airport but rather behind the [Vista] courthouse near the 78. As you know, since about 2012, I, too, have been experiencing an increased number of flights overhead. Not only are there more planes above than in previous years, but these planes are lower and much louder. Prior to 2012, the number of flights overhead would have equated to what I would consider to be rogue or lost pilots. There weren't that many and they weren't that low. To give you an idea of what we experience nowadays, let's look at one day as an example of the increase in flights and noise levels over my home. On October 29th of this year, in a one-hour period from approximately 1:20-2:20 p.m., I counted 27 planes overhead. Sometimes two or three at a time. I took decibel readings the entire hour. One reading was 59, one was at 65. ALL of the other readings during that hour were above 65, coming in at 70, 79, 82, 84, 95, etc., and as high as 103. This is just one day's accounting, but it happens every day. Sometimes the noise is such that it does stop conversations, and living here for 23 years, that's a new and unpleasant phenomenon for us. It certainly disrupts the quiet enjoyment of our home and patio garden. This increase in flights isn't just on Thursday afternoons; flights are overhead all hours of the day and night. There are regular flights between 10 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. We have been awakened between 1:30- 2:00 a.m. so many times that when I'm awakened by a plane, I can, sadly, guess the time with uncanny accuracy. (2015) This is in response to the planes and noise from Palomar airport. We live on Spyglass Circle and I've noticed a number of planes flying low in the late evening around 11 :00/11 :30 p.m. and several that come by in the late afternoon around 3-ish. The ones at night are the worst as they wake me up. I've also noticed about once a month (with no real pattern other than 10:00 p.m. being the favored time) we have helicopters that circle around the golf course which are very loud and they spend about an hour or so circling the course and waking everyone up. I've not complained to the airport folks. However, I also own a home on Smilax Rd and noticed that about 4 years ago, they started routing plans overhead. I did complain then, but it really didn't help. (2014) I believe my wife has sent you an email in the past, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents. Low flying aircraft has always been a problem here in Shadowridge especially on the weekends. Many of the commuter flights are so low you can view the people inside! When we purchased a home here 25 years ago, we were never told that we are in the flight path of the local airport. The whole issue is silly ....... the flight path regulations are only voluntary and not enforced! Maybe the IRS should follow suit and tell us all that there are tax requirements, but they are only voluntary and don't care if you pay or not. (2014} March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 76 of 87 Yes, we have had commercial and private planes flying over our HOME, way too low ... very loud, and it makes the windows shake and the china cabinet rattle! Ugh. As for exact dates, I never wrote them down. I did call FAA once, and basically got the run around, though. (2014) 7 I have lived in Vista since 1984, first on Alta Vista Way and since 2000 in north Vista on Ahmu Terrace. Through the years the airplane noise has gotten worse and worse. I am forced to wear ear protection when working in the yard. I paid extra to live on a quiet cul-de-sac, not next to a freeway, so why should the noise equivalent of flying trucks go over my back yard sometimes up to ten a minute. The airport may have been there before we moved in BUT the level of activity has hugely increased over last thirty years. It is not the same airport as when I moved here. Not only is there more propeller plane traffic, but now with expansion of runway we have PASSENGER jets! The screaming whine of some ofthem is insane. And what about all the commuter helicopters? They are two or three times as noisy as planes. Why can't the helicopters fly over the ocean as they go north? And you realize that aviation fuel is the only fuel allowed to have a known agent of mental retardation as a component. That agent is the metal lead. Why do we tolerate this metal being spewed down on our gardens, our children's and grandchildren's playgrounds? {2016) March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 77 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Jason Haber Monday, March 05, 2018 11:16 PM 'Raymond Bender' Subject: RE: (1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, (2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR Attachments: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -LEGACY -Planning Eng Application -Palomar Airport; CUP 172; Correspondence; 2130201800.pdf; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -LEGACY - Planning Eng Application -Palomar Airport; CUP 172; Correspondence[2]; 2130201800.pdf; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -LEGACY -Planning Eng Application - Palomar Airport; CUP 172; Correspondence [4]; 2130201800.pdf; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -LEGACY -Planning Eng Application -Palomar Airport; CUP 172; Correspondence ; 2130201800 (3).pdf Hi Ray, Attached are the files we were able to locate in the city's electronic records today that appear responsive to your request under Item 2, below. You will see that we have not yet located the 1997 letter you reference. That said, it may turn up with more time to search. I'll be in touch if I locate any additional records related to your request. Thanks, Jason From: Raymond Bender [mailto:b Sent: Mondayr March 05, 2018 6:02 PM To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca .gov> Cc: Raymond Bender <benderbocan@aol.com> Subject: Re: {1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, {2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR Thanx. RB On Mar 5, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: Hi Ray, Thank you for following up. Yes, city staff is currently searching our records to determine whether they contain the documents you refer to in Item 2 of your email, below. With regard to Item 3, the city understands your interest in evaluating KKR's "level of knowledge" and in determining whether the city's comment letter adequately addresses the "tough issues," or not; however, we will respectfully decline your request to meet at this time. That said, you will have an opportunity to review the city's draft comment letter later this week, and you are encouraged to present your questions and comments on it, either in writing, or in person at the City Council meeting on 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 78 of 87 March 13th, when city staff and attorneys from KKR will be on hand to discuss the research, preparation and substance of our draft letter. Thank you again for your note. I will be in touch as soon as I am able to respond regarding Item 2. Sincerely, Jason Haber Assistant to the City Manager <imageOOl.gif> 760-434-2958 I Jason .Haber@carlsbadca.gov 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 www.carlsbadca.gov Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews From: Manager Internet Email Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:25 PM To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: FW: {1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, (2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR This is addressed to you but sent to the manager inbox. From: Raymond Bender [mailto:b ] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 12:34 PM To: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Cc: Raymond Bender < Subject: Re: (1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, (2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR Jason Thanks for the forwarded drawing, Item 1 requested in my March 2nd email. Please confirm that Carlsbad staff is looking for Item 2 in the March 2nd email= the 1979 county- prepared CUP 172 Table 1 showing "runways" as the very first item that county could develop. [Later deleted by the Carlsbad City Council when Reso 1699 approving the Final CUP 172 with Table 1 was approved plus the 1997 letter from county [when the county 1997 -2017 PMP was being processed], possibly from Floyd Best at Airports or an airport engineer, which again tried to get Carlsbad to adopt a CUP 172 Table 1 with the word "runway" reinserted. As you can appreciate, it KKR or Carlsbad tried to opine on the meaning of CUP 172 "expansion" without producing these documents, the community position would be that (i) Carlsbad and KKR did an incomplete search and (ii) came to a conclusion without II the relevant facts, even while knowing what those facts were. 2 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 79 of 87 Also, as to my requested Item 3 in the March 2, 2018 email [1 hour meeting with KKR], I am assuming Carlsbad is refusing this request, but please confirm in writing so the record [and arguments at Carlsbad council election time] are clear. Thanks RB - On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Raymond Bender < wrote: Please confirm receipt of the email below and distribution to Mr. Haber this morning Friday, March 2, 2018. Thanks. Ray Bender Begin forwarded message: From: Raymond Bender < Subject: Fwd: (1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, (2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR Date: March 2, 2018 at 9:12:44 AM PST To: manager@carlsbadca.gov Cc: Raymond Bender Begin forwarded message: From: Raymond Bender < Subject: (1) Need CUP 172 Ex A Dwg dated January 14, 1980 referenced in CUP 172, Condition 1, (2) KKR CUP 172 Expansion interpretation, and (3) KKR Comments on County PEIR Date: March 2, 2018 at 9:09:28 AM PST To: jason.haber@carlsbadca.gov. Cc: Raymond Bender < "corey.funk@carlsbadca.gov" <corey.funk@carlsbadca.gov>, shelia.cobian@carl sbadca.gov Hi Jason As I mentioned in my February 18, 2018 letter presented at the Feb 20 Carlsbad special council meeting, I saw your email upon my return from New Zealand on Feb 18. You asked if I have received all I need related to Carlsbad and county processing the county PMP & PEIR. 3 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 80 of 87 Just getting through my jet lag, cold, and some of those old age medical tests, so finally have a chance to get back to you. I would like 3 things as noted below. 1. CUP 172 Condition 1 January 14, 1980 Drawing. Condition 1 says: Conditions 1) Approval is granted for CUP-172 as shown on Exhibitit A" ,dated January 14, 1980 and Table 1 dated September 24, 1980, incorporated by reference and in file in the Planning Depar'tment. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. Please provide the drawing Condition 1 references. 2. CUP 172 Table 1 History. As I noted in my Feb 18, 2018 letter and presentation to the Carlsbad council, county both in 1979 and again in 1997 prepared CUP172 Table 1 drafts and expressly included language allowing county to extend its runway. Carlsbad deleted that language from the council adopted CUP 172 (by Resolution 1699, I believe). Please provide the county drafts and all Carlsbad records explaining Carlsbad's deletion of the county requested language. 3. Discussion with KKR. I would like to meet with KKR to discuss the issues, mainly the upcoming Carlsbad comments on the county PMP and PEIR. I realize that is an unusual request. However, I have spent 3,000 hours reviewing county and Carlsbad records over the last 4 years and KKR has presumably spent very little. Of course, I would 4 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 81 of 87 expect Celia and anyone else Carlsbad wanted to be present. Here is my thinking. a. Carlsbad has hired a firm with national expertise in airport development including environmental work. Presumably KKR has reviewed 20 to 40 airport environmental documents across the US and automatically knows where the EIR "weak points" are -without even reading the county PEIR. b. Although it is always good to get community input and include Carlsbad resident concerns in the KKR/Carlsbad comments on the county PMP and PEIR, those comments very possibly will not address the tough issues because CEQA law is complex. c. Speaking for myself only, especially since I am a San Marcos resident, I will judge the seriousness of the KKR/Carlsbad planning and environmental comments on the PMP and PEIR by whether they truly discuss the tough issues. I expect my PMP and PEIR comments to be far more comprehensive than those of KKR/Carlsbad. However, I would love to see the KKR/Carlsbad expertise added to the mix. d. In the absence of KKR/Carlsbad raising the difficult PMP and PEIR issues, I could see an issue arising in the upcoming Carlsbad elections 5 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 82 of 87 as to whether Carlsbad made a "half-hearted" attempt to appease the public. Since I am woefully behind in reading the county 3000 PMP and PEIR pages, I am looking for a 1-hour meeting only. Frankly, I would grill KKR on some tough issues to see (i) its level of knowledge, (ii) willingness to raise the issues, and/or (iii) whether I am just a senile old man ready for pasture. If I didn't get serious responses to the questions in the first twenty minutes, the meeting ends. Thanks. RB. receipt. Pls confirm 6 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 83 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Manager Internet Email Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:45 AM Jason Haber FW: proposed Carlsbad International Airport High From: George Morelli PhD [mailto:g Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 4:46 PM To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: proposed Carlsbad International Airport Importance: High To Whom It May Concern: Palomar Airport expansion is an outstanding proposal. North County desperately needs its own, easy to access airport. (Traveling to Lindberg is a nightmare, adding to traffic, air pollution etc.). It would also add to Carlsbad's economy. The airport was here, way before the opponents. I am a nearby resident and ardent supporter. Thank you for your kind attention. George Morelli, PhD, FACPN Associate Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study of Rational Psychotherapy Center for Cognitive Therapy of North County La Costa, CA 92009-5822 1 / March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 84 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sheila Cobian Sent: To: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:04 AM Jason Haber Subject: FW: Adding to the public record, for March 13 FYI ... Thank you, City ofCarlsbad Sheila Cobian, CMC City Clerk Services Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 www.carlsbadca.gov 760-434-2917 I sheila.cobian@carlsbadca.gov Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews From: Cori Schumacher [mailto:cori@corischumacher.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 8:56 AM To: Sheila Cobian <Sheila.Cobian@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Adding to the public record, for March 13 Dear Sheila, A number of residents from last night's Community Conversation on the Palomar Airport Master Plan and EIR have requested the video of the conversation be made a part of the public record for the March 13 agenda item on the staff comment letter. Here is the link: https://youtu.be/uwacOaFYAuU Kindly, Cori 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 85 of 87 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Graham Thorley < Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:46 AM Jason Haber Point Loma Property Value 2017 2018 Property Valuejpg In last nights community meeting, there was a comment that Point Lorna's home values were going up not down as the FAA and OC's reports predicted. See the attached photo for the facts. Then add Carlsbad's property value trend since 2015 and you have to assume, without the aircraft noise, Point Lorna's home values should be $100,000 or more higher, not lower than 2015. Also, In the photo it shows Point Loma property values were at their highest in 2015, just before the FAA implemented NextGEN. Lastly, that is also when there were only 4,000 aircraft noise complaints received at San Diego International, today as I stated at the February 20th Council Meeting, that number is over 40,000. Here is the website link to property values https://www.househunt.com/home-prices/CA/Point Loma/ 1 March 13, 2018 Item #8 Page 86 of 87 Jason Haber To: Manager Internet Email Subject: RE: Council Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversation From: Manager Internet Email Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:54 AM To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov> ~ubject: FW: Cou~dl Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversatio~ . From: Hope Nelson [mailto:h ] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 6:30 PM All Receive -Agenda Item # 'K For the Information of the:- CITY COUNCIL ACM.// CA ./ CC / Date ..3..:1:11City Manager 7' To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Council Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversation To Mayor Hall, City Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, Mr. Jason Haber and City Clerk: It is sad that the City Council refused to znd a motion to allow an Ad-Ho·c committee to work on the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue. It is too bad that the City never sponsored a true City Workshop regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue. I appreciate having a Special City Council Meeting. I hoped for something more interactive, particularly the opportunity to dialogue with outside council Kaplan, Kirsch and Rockwell. ' I thought any of our City Officials interested in the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue might be interested in seeing City Councilwoman Cori Schumacher conduct a Community Conversation with approximately 80 attendees, regarding the Airport. I hope this helps you maneuver the City's way through this issue on behalf of its citizens. Also, I request this be made part of the official City Records. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Concerned Carlsbad Resident , https://w https://youtu.be/uwacOaFY AuU 1 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Manager Internet Email Thursday, March 081 2018 8:56 AM Jason Haber r Subject: Attachments: FW: CRQ Expansion-Learning Issues Associated with Noise Schools within 5 mile radius of CRQ.xlsx From: Suzie Thorley [mailto:s Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:23 PM ' To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Attorney <attorney@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: CRQ Expansion-Learning Issues Associated with Noise March 7, 2018 To: Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad Manager, Carlsbad Attorney and Carlsbad Clerk Since writing to you on February 9, 2018 re expansion of McClellan Palomar Airport, I have done some further research on the impact of noise on children's learning. It is clear ttiat in Carlsbad we can predict that our children will be negatively impacted from noise generated by aircraft. Should the runway be extended, the noise affected area will go from two (2) miles to five (5) miles surrounding the airport. With Google I have mapped schools, parks, senior communities, churches and golf courses within a five (5) mile radius from McClellan Palomar Airport. See attached for the charts I created with mileage noted to each facility, schools, parks, etc. Within that five (5) mile radius, there are 56 schools, 67 parks and open spaces, 19 retirement/senior communities, 28 churches and 9 golf courses. I Should this expansion be approved, it will affect the children of our communities for generations to come. I have included a sampling of their findings from a few studies with th~ link to each study quoted. https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.2812596 'While at school children are exposed to various types of noise including external, environmental noise and noise generated within the classroom. Previous research has shown that noise has detrimental effects upon children's performance at school, including reduced memory, motivation, and reading ability." http://www.educationworld.com/a curr/curr011.shtml "Have You Heard? Noise Can Affect Learning! A handful of research studies confirm that noise has a negative effect on a child's ability to learn. Also, "noise education" should be part of the school curriculum; kids should know how to protect their ears from harm." "Children in schools bombarded by frequent aircraft noise don't learn to read as well as children in quiet schools do, say Cornell University researchers. And those researchers have discovered one majorreason: kids tune out speech in the racket. · 1 Older students who attended schools near major New York airports had lower reading scores than children in schools located further from the airports did. (Green & Shore, Archives of Environmental Health, 1982) In one New York City school, a study focused on students in grades two, four, and six. Half of the classes at each grade level were 1n classrooms adjacent to train tracks; the other half of the classes were on the quieter side of the building. The study showed that the reading levels of the students on the noisy side df the building were behind the reading levels of their peers on the quiet side of the building. The sixth graders on the noisy side of the building averaged as much as one year behind in reading. (Bronzaft & McCarthy, Environment and Behavior, 1975) Then rubber pads were installed on the nearby train tracks and acoustic ceiling tiles were installed on ceilings of the noisiest classrooms. Those noise-abatement 'measures cut the noise levels in the noisy classrooms by as much as eight decibels. (Noise levels are cut in half for eve,y ten-decibel decrease in measured sound.) A two-year study following the installation of the rubber pads and acoustic tiles showed no differences in reading levels between classes on the two sides of the building. (Bronzaft, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1981)" http://www.thelancet.com/iournals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605666603/abstract "Our aim, therefore, was to assess the effect of exposure to aircraft and road traffic noise on cognitive performance and health in children. Our findings indicate that a chronic environmental stressor-aircraft noise-could impair cognitive development in children, specifically reading comprehe'nsion. Schools exposed to high levels of aircraft noise are not healthy educational environments." https://www.cambridge.org/core/iournals/psychological-medicine/article/chronic-aircraft-noise-exposure-stress-responses- mental-health-and-cognitive-performance-in-school-children/OC77FCC4B56A8DB4E5506A 13BF8536F5 ."Conclusions. These results suggest that chronic aircraft noise exposure is associated with impaired reading comprehension and high levels of noise annoyance but not mental health problems in children." https://academic. oup. com/aie/article/ 163/1 /27 /84998 "Findings were consistent across the three r;ountries, which varied with respect to a range of socioeconomic and environmental variables, thus offering robust evidence of a direct exposure-effect relation between aircraft noise and reading comprehension." Please consider the effects this expansion will have on all, especially the children, in Carlsbad and surrounding· communities. Respectfully, Suzie Thorley Resident since 1978 2 A B 1 Miles 67 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES 2 1.00 Business Park Recreational Facility 3 1.00 Carlsbad Skate Park 4 1.02 Aviara Community Park 5 1.16 Topiary Park 6 1.25 Alga Norte Community Park1 7 1.28' Bressi Square 8 1.44 Bressi Ranch Gazebo Pi:!rk 9 1.48 Boys & Girls Club, Bressi 10 1.78 Legoland 11 1.90 Poinsettia Community Park 12 1.94 Sea Life Aquarium 13 1.94 Legoland Chima Water Park 14 2.29 Flower Fields 15 2.30 Laguna Rivera City Park 16 2.43 Carlsbad Premium Outlets 17 2.51 Leo Carrillo Ranch Historical Park 18 2.63 Carlsbad Lagoon Dog Park 19 2.67 Batiquitos Lagoon 20 2.68 Agua Hedonia · 21 2.69 Buena Vista Park 22 2.69 Carlsbad Poinsettia Station 23 2.69 La costa Meadows Fuerte Park 24 2.75 Car Country Park 25 2.84 Calavara Hills Community Park 26 2.98 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground 27 3.17 Simmons Family Park 28 3.27 Cannon Park 29 3.35 Oak Riparian Park 30 3.35 Lake Park 31 3.46 La Costa Canyon Park 32 3.71 TfrCity Crossroads Shopping Center 33 3.73 Hidden Canyon Community Park 34 3.86 Shadowridge Park 35 3.96 Lavante School Park 36 3.96 Sunset Park 37 3.99 La Costa Valley Tire Swing Park 38 4.00 Sunset Park (San Marcos) 39 4.11 Thibodo Park 40 4.12 Holiday Park 41 4.15 Pine Avenue Park 42 4.16 Chase Field A B 43 4.21 Breeze Hill Park 44 4.34 Mahogany Park 45 4.35 Rancho Ponderosa Park 46 4.36 Rancho Ponderosa Park 2 47 4.37 Forum 48 4.37 Harding Community Center 49 4.44 Stage Coach Community Park 50 4.46 Boys & Girls Club, Carlsbad 51 4.46 Scott Valley Park 52 4.50 Bradley Park 53 4.62 Hosp Grove Park 54 4.64 Rotary Park 55 4.64 Fallsview Park 56 I 4.65 Leo Mullin Sports Park 57 4.67 The John Landes Skate Park 58 4.68 North County Square 59 4.71 Carlsbad Village Station 60 4.88 Magee Park 61 4.90 San Elijo Hills Hilltop Field 62 4.91 Army & Navy Sports Complex 63 4.94 Joseph Sepulveda Park 64 4.95 Orpheus Park 65 4.96 San Elijo Park Lower Baseball Field 66 4.97 San Elijo Hills Dog Park 67 4.99 San Elijo Park 68 4.99 Maxton Brown Park Jason Haber From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Thursday, March 08, 2018 9:15 AM Morgen Fry Cc: City Clerk; Jason Haber Subject: FW: NO Airport Expansion --Carlsbad has a VOTE Morgen, Please distribute to the city council members. Andi From: areysbergen [mailto: Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:39 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: NO Airport Expansion --Carlsbad has a VOTE McClellan-Palomar Airport is unique. In 1980, a group of Carlsbad citizens created a Citizens' Initiative to guarantee that any expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport be voted on by the Citizens of Carlsbad. It's the law of the land. In 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that Citizens' Initiatives are the highest form of law in California. Carlsbad has a vote! thank you, alice reysbergen property owner, resident, registered VOTER 1 All Receive -Agenda Item # ~ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ../ ACM ...;/ CA ./ CC Date .Y'H&City Manager ;/ To : Carlsbad City Council Members, City Attorney, City Manager, and Assistant to the City Manager Via: Carlsbad City Clerk [Delivered personally by Mr. Bender by 2 p.m. Friday, March 9, 2018 for distribution to council and staff. From: Ray & Ellen Bender [760 752-1716 and [2018 Bender Cover Memo to Carlsbad City Clerk RB March 9 Comments on City March 13 Council Rept] Re: Bender March 9, 2018 Comments on Carlsbad On Line March 8, 2018 Staff Report Related to Carlsbad City Council March 13, 2018 Consideration of Carlsbad Comments on County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Attached are our 60 pages of comments on the Carlsbad Staff Report, which Carlsbad placed online yesterday afternoon, Thursday, March 8, 2018. Please deliver our comments to all council members, the city attorney, city manager, and assistant to the city manager. We have tried to simplify your duplication of the papers in two ways. First, we have included only one-sided copies. Second, in the lower left comer, we have numbered the documents from 1 to 60 to assure good order. The 60 pages comprise our initial 11-pages of comments including pp. 10 and 11, which identify multiple attachments. Pages 12 to 60 are the attachments. Please call if you have any questions and advise when delivery will be made so that council and staff have adequate time before the meeting to review the comments. Thank you. Carlsbad City Council Members, Carlsbad City Attorney, Carlsbad City Manager, and Carlsbad Assistant City Manager Ray & Ellen Bender Comments on March 13, 2018 Carlsbad City Council Agenda Item Entitled: "City comment letter on County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report" Date: Friday' March 9' 2018 [2018 RB Comments Carlsbad City Council Mar 13 Mtg] We comment on the "March 13, 2018" draft letter Carlsbad included in the council Thursday, March 8, 2018 agenda packet. But first, some history. When county prepared its 1997-2017 Palomar Master Plan, the then Carlsbad city council told the county to present the old PMP to the council. Initially, county did. But then county withdrew its application. Carlsbad's Michael J. Holzmiller in a July 11, 1996 Community Development Director Memo to the City Manager said: "The Airport staff is proposing to take the Master Plan forward for Board of Sup~rvisor approval in the near future. Airport staff will be processing the necessary environmental documents concurrently with the Master Plan. 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 Airp01i plans previously approved under CUP 172 (approved by Planning Commission September 24, 2980). Therefore, [Carlsbad] staff proposes to advise the Airport staff that they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed Master Plan. Airport staff has 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." [Emphasis added.] The irony should not be lost on today's Carlsbad's council members. The failure of the 1997 council to act decisively has exposed Carlsbad residents to unnecessary environmental impacts by the county 2018 proposed PMP. These impacts result from (i) conversion of the airpo1i from a B-II airpo1i to a D-III airport and (ii) a Palomar runway relocation and 800-foot extension. In 1997, the Carlsbad council should have held an MC§ 21.53.015 Carlsbad resident vote. Council should also have filed a declaratory relief action in the superior court asking the comi to declare the respective rights and obligations of Carlsbad and the county. The council inherits the legacy of its past inactions. Having said the foregoing, we liked yesterday's staffs proposed letter to county a lot. We were pleased to see: CD 1 • Carlsbad finally recognizes that the county 2018-2038 PMP projects physically trigger county expansion outside the Carlsbad CUP 172 premises, which are limited to the McClellan-Palomar Airport property on the northwest comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and Palomar Airport Road (PAR). Palomar cannot operate without proper aircraft navigational systems and runway protection zones, both of which extend outside the airport northwest parcel. And, as Carlsbad notes, the runway extension and relocation may also change the McClellan-Palomar ALUC safety and noise zones. • Carlsbad staff noted repeated county PEIR omissions, incorrect assumptions, misapplied analytic methods, and misapplied CEQA Guidelines. For instance, county omitted in its cumulative analysis several Carlsbad hotels, which were on the Carlsbad list previously provided to county. And, in words too kind, Carlsbad noted county's sad attempt at analyzing airport greenhouse gas impacts. • Carlsbad noted [though without citing Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598 (2001)] the California requirement that EIRs analyze single noise events, especially given the repeated community complaints of changing Palomar flight paths (including by the Vista Mayor). • Carlsbad finally acknowledges, though in words unduly subtle, that the county 2018-2038 PMP will likely require an update to the Carlsbad 2015 General Plan. Hence, we see an undoubted Carlsbad legislative act within the meaning of Carlsbad MC§ 21.53.015 Unfortunately, the staff report and 87-page added administrative record continued to omit key information. The record did not include: • The Bender 16-page February 18, 2018 letter commenting on the county PMP position as related to Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad MC§ 21.53.015. The Carlsbad March 8, 2018 87-page record did include the Bender February 21, 2018 letter. But each letter raises distinct issues. The February 18, 2018 letter was personally delivered to Carlsbad council members at the Carlsbad February 20, 2018 special council meeting. Mr. Bender spoke at that meeting and referred to the February 18, 2018 letter discussion. • The Carlsbad March 8, 2018 staff letter also omits the Carlsbad records discussed in Mr. Bender's February 18, 2018 letter. The letter shows that CUP 172 Table 1 could not possibly allow a county runway extension without Carlsbad approval. Hence, a runway extension is an airport expansion. Why? Because the county in 1979 initially prepared Table 1 and requested inclusion of runways. Carlsbad deleted the county CUP 172 Table 1 runway request when Carlsbad adopted CUP 2 172 by Resolution 1699 in 1980. Carlsbad did so again in 1997 when county tried to revise the CUP 172 Table 1 language to include runways. • As Carlsbad's March 8, 2018 87-page administrative record does show in the exchange of emails between Mr. Bender and Mr. Justin Haber, Mr. Bender requested that Carlsbad produce the key CUP 172 Table 1 documents. Inexplicably, Carlsbad has failed to include them. For that reason, we attach these records to this March 9, 2018 letter and discuss the records below. • The Carlsbad administrative record and proposed comment letter to the county also omits some key information related to the county compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order 96-13 (renumbered recently but keeping substantially the same requirements). Order 96-13 set Palomar landfill water quality improvement objectives, which county has consistently failed to meet over the last 20 years. For this reason, we include as an attachment to this March 9, 2018 letter a copy of our March 5, 2018 letter to the RWQCB Board members. The Carlsbad comment letter also fails to discuss several relevant PMP and PEIR concerns. We summarize many of them in the attachment to this letter called The Top Thirty-Two Reasons Why County's 2018-2038 PMP and PEIR Do Not Support its Recommendation to Convert McClellan-Palomar (MP) Airport From an FAA-Rated B-11 Airport to a Modified D-111 Airport. Before we comment further on the foregoing issues, we request that the Carlsbad council at its March 13, 2018 meeting: (i) Instruct Carlsbad staff to provide to the council by April 1, 2018 all needed information related to Carlsbad holding an MC§ 21.53.015 Carlsbad resident vote on the county 2018 -2038 PMP and related projects; and (ii) Instruct staff to include in the March 13, 2018 administrative record Mr. Bender's February 18, 2018 letter, this March 9, 2018 letter with all its attachments. (iii) Set a Carlsbad city council meeting not later than April 10 2018 to vote on holding the MC§ 21.53.015 election. Detailed Discussion & Documents Supporting Facts Listed Above Question 1: Why did Carlsbad omit key documents from its February 20, 2018 Special City Council staff report and.fail to provide them to the outside law.firm? 3 What do Carlsbad and KKR say about the need for a Carlsbad legislative act? They say Palomar is already zoned and planned for airport uses. So they ask if changes are needed. Moreover, KKR wonders if county would simply adopt its PMP and ignore Carlsbad. Here are the fallacies in that thinking: • • • • Because the airport is within the city of Carls bad, Government Code § 65402(b) expressly says that county must ask Carlsbad whether the county 2018 -2038 is consistent with the 2015 Carlsbad General Plan. The code says: "(b) A county shall not ... construct or authorize a public building or structure .. . within the corporate limits of a city, if such city ... has adopted a general plan .. . and such general plan ... is applicable thereto .. . until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof .... " But, says Carlsbad, both county and Carlsbad can ignore the law and fail to make a "consistency" determination, California courts start with different presumptions. The courts routinely assume that govermnental entities and their officers in furtherance of their oaths of office, perform the duties state law requires. Stated differently, the MC§ 21.53.015 issue is not whether Carlsbad must approve the county 2018-2038 PMP. The issue is whether the county action forces Carlsbad to act. GC § 65402(b) forces such action. And the Carlsbad council has in fact amended its General Plan within the last 10 years to make sure the airport activities were consistent with the plan. Courts routinely say that they will not give laws absurd meanings. If county's interpretation of ignoring Carlsbad were accepted, the court would be saying: "Even if (i) an airport extends its runway, (ii) affects the safety and noise of the community around the ailport, (iii) and creates conditions inconsistent with local planning and zoning, it's ok (f Carlsbad and the county allow inconsistent development to proceed around the airport. " Judges are very careful about endangering hwnan safety. Finally, the county 2018 -2038 county PMP will force Carlsbad to update its 2015 General Plan. Why? The 2015 Carlsbad GP had no info about county's plan to convert the Airport from a B-II small, slow, fuel-light aircraft airport to a D-III airport for very large, fast aircraft carrying several thousand gallons of fuel by drilling hundreds of very long piling holes through the Airport 19-acre east end landfill which: (aa) in the 2000s had a 6-month plus underground landfill fire, which likely converted part of the landfill materials to hazardous waste; (bb) has periodically reported methane gas readings exceeding the regulatory 5% explosive limit at landfill monitoring wells. 7 Question 4: Wait a minute. Why is GC § 65402(b) in Question 3 above so important? What about CUP 172 and MC§ 21.53.015? The Carlsbad laws are very important. See Question 5 below. But county says it can ignore them because they are city laws. But GC § 65402(b) is is a state law. Not a Carlsbad law. County and Carlsbad must obey it. CUP 172 simply provides an independent reason for the Carlsbad council to immediately schedule an MC§ 21.53.015 vote. Question 5: Ok, but doesn't county have a point? When the Carlsbad Planning Commission and Council look at the runway extension issue, aren't they just resolving a dispute? Defining what the word "expansion" means? That's not a legislative act under MC§ 21.53.015. A court might very well say that interpreting the word "expansion" in CUP 172 is a "quasi-judicial, not a legislative action." But now the real question arises. For the reasons above, there is little doubt that a runway extension is an airport expansion. But CUP 172 Table 1 says it must be amended to allow runway extensions before county would have this right. Now the magic question: Who can tear up the existing CUP 172 and rewrite it, especially since it has no expiration date. The better view seems to be that no city council may delegate to one of its inferior bodies the right to define the conditions of a perpetual conditional use permit that detennines how a regional airport will affect 112,000 residents within the city. Are the issues free from doubt? No. But is now the time for five council members to stick their heads in the sand? Carlsbad needs leadership, not abandonment. The Carlsbad residents deserve their vote. Carlsbad residents should say whether they do or do not support an expanded airp01i. Carlsbad residents do not need MIA, Missing in Action council members. Moreover, county has ignored both the CUP 172, Condition 8 "expansion" issue discussed above and the CUP 172, Condition 11 "general aviation basic transport" issue. By requesting and accepting CUP 172 in 1980, county agreed in Condition 11 that it would maintain Palomar as an FAA classified general aviation airport for basic transport. But in the 1990s, county asked the FAA to certify Palomar for operations for regularly scheduled commercial carriers. The 2017-2022 FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems report says that serving regularly scheduled carriers is not a general aviation basic transport service. County never asked Carlsbad to amend CUP 172 to allow the new use, which creates significantly greater environmental and safety impacts. Unless and until the Board of Supervisors chooses to (i) withdraw its consent to abide by CUP 172 and (ii) process its 2018-2038 PMP in accordance with the procedural and substancd requirements of the Government Code, county remains bound by CUP 172. 8 Question 6: Why should there be a vote if the county will just ignore Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista residents? Historically, county gets 90% of its airport improvement grants from the FAA. The FAA is fond of saying that local communities, not the FAA, decide whether local airports should exist or expand. The county for 14 years placed about 1 million cubic yards of trash in Palomar Airport canyons. Thus far, county has not shown it received FAA permission to do so. One FAA grant condition provides that airports may not use airport property for non-airport purposes. So the FAA could easily find that the county repeatedly violated past FAA grants. And here's the extraordinary result. County totally rehabilitated its 4900 feet of Palomar runway in 2009 with an $8.6 million FAA grant. Yet county now says it needs more than $70 million to tear up and extend a runway that was just totally redone 9 years ago. Why so much? Simply because the grant-violating landfills created unstable soil. And why else should the FAA be squeamish about giving county more money? Because Congress in 2010 passed the federal Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act and instructed the federal Office of Management and Budget and the General Accountability Office and the Department of Transportation Inspector General to scrutinize federal grants. So Carlsbad residents want their vote. If the community supports the airport, so be it. If they oppose it, send two messages loud and clear. First to the FAA: Do not fund a Palomar expansion. Second, to the air carriers who want to increase passenger flights: The community residents will not use you. We will trade the once or twice a year convenience of Palomar flights for the daily increase in noise, pollution, and traffic. Thank you for your consideration of the issues raised above. /s/ Ray & Ellen Bender 9 The Top Thirty-Two Reasons Why County's 2018-2038 PMP and PEIR Do Not Support its Recommendation to Convert McClellan-Palomar (MP) Airport From an FAA-Rated B-II Airport to a Modified D-III Airport [Prepared by Ray Bender] A. The Numbers Don't Support the County Staff Recommendation • New PMP forecasts 30% Reduction in MP flights from prior high; • Only 10,000 passenger flights needed to handle 500,000 more passengers out of a total of 202,000 flights; • County forecasts Y4 of 1 % D-III flights by 2038 (500 out of202,000); • County admits few past flights leaving MP needed other airport refueling; • County wants $70 million 1 to add 800 runway feet when MP replaced the entire 4900 runway feet for $8.6 million in 2009 [$12,280 v. $1,700 per lineal foot];2 • The most recent 10 years of Palomar operations indicate declining operations and a Palomar Airport operating at minimal income or a loss. Conclusion: MP already has major excess capacity to served limited future needs. Any Board of Supervisor member approval of this project should lead to a grand jury investigation of BOS expenditures and political contributions. B. Neither FAA Safety Policies Nor its Grant Policies Support the County Converting Palomar from a B-II Airport.3 • Safety: According to a 2011 Eighty-Page FAA Report Prepared for Santa Monica Airport, which like Palomar also has 300-Foot RSAs, Palomar Does not need a $25 Million EMAS Safety System.4 1 Note especially. The $70 million cost does NOT even include the cost of adding a west end runway EMAS system at an added $25 million and similar system at the east end. 2 The text shows how "averages" deceive. In reality, county would reconstruct most of its original 4900 feet at a reasonable cost, but the cost of the 800-foot extension over hundreds of deep landfill-piercing pilings would be constructed at an exorbitant cost per lineal foot. 3 The FAA Airport Improvement Handbook and FAA Benefit Cost Manual set the FAA Grant "Justification, Allowability, Intergovernmental Cooperation, Environmental, and Reasonable Cost requirements noted in the text. Also, county itself established 8 project alternative evaluation criteria including "eligibility for FAA funding." 4 MP, an FAA-rated B airport, has a 300-foot runway safety area (RSA) at the runway west end. FAA design guidelines require 1000-foot RSAs if FAA-rated C and D aircraft use airpo1is. Because of the FAA design requirement, Santa Monica (SM) airport banned C and D aircraft because SM was also a B airport with residences close to the RSA. The FAA cried foul. Held a hearing. The FAA hearing officer filed an 80-page report explaining why C and D aircraft using a B airport were actually safer than A and B aircraft. The federal court of appeals upheld the FAA. We disagree with the result. But the FAA claims to be the expert? Stated differently, why does MP need a $25 million EMAS today when C and D aircraft have been using MP for 20 years? See City of Santa Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, 631 F. 3d 550, 554 (D.C. Circuit, 201 I) (affirming the FAA decision voiding the SM Ordinance attempting to ban FAA-rated C and D larger aircraft from Santa Monica Airport), § II.A. Cl!) • • • • • • How much of a runway extension can be built on stable soil and how much on pilings augured through the landfill? (iii) How much of MP's existing methane collection system will be replaced and what air quality impacts result? ( 4) Where does the PMP EIR discus the issues raised by the county consultant SCS Engineers October 2013 report outlining safety and environmental impacts of an aircraft crashing into the landfill? and (5) What problems will auguring hundreds oflong piles through the Unit 3 liner less landfill cause to water quality? County FAA Handbook Project Allowability Failure. For county to show the 2017-2037 PMP projects are "allowable," the Handbook requires county to show the projects are necessary and reasonable in cost. What PMP evidence exists to show runway extensions and relocations are needed when Palomar (1) is underutilized today and flight forecasts fall 30% over the next 20 years and (2) county presented no credible evidence of a need to encourage international flights from Palomar? How can FAA consider the county's projected cost reasonable when the costs are underestimated and even then 10 times normal as a result of county placing 1 million cubic yards of decaying, methane-emitting trash, which results in the need for deep pile supported runway extensions? County FAA Handbook Improvement Amortization Failure. County's proposal to extend the runway in the short term and relocate the entire runway within 20 years violates the FAA 20-year rule, which requires the proposed newly constructed EMAS and runway extension to be amortized over 20 years. County BCA Manual Revenue Calculation Failure #1: County miscalculates its projected increased revenues from extending the runway by ignoring the fact that alleged new Palomar revenues will simply be transferred from San Diego International Airport 30 miles to the south. County BCA Manual Revenue Calculation Failure #2: County miscalculates its revenues by ignoring revenue offsets caused by the three Palomar landfill revenue losses resulting from reducing rent for landfill-impacted tenants. County BCA Manual Calculation Failure #3: County improperly excluded EMAS costs from its runway extension costs. Due to Palomar land footprint limits, Palomar cannot satisfy FAA Airport RSA 1000-foot length requirements if county extends its runway unless county adds 2 EMAS systems. In other words, installing the EMAS is not truly a safety measure (as noted above based on expert FAA testimony) but rather a way of increasing the runway length and MP capacity. County BCA Manual Failure #4. County's PMP underestimates PMP project costs. County fails to fully explain its runway extension piling requirement costs including the present costs of removing landfill-contaminated soil when hundreds of deep drilling holes are made. CID 3 • • • • • County's PEIR Fails to Satisfy Programmatic Requirements. California encourages program EIRs. The concept is simple. Project sponsors usually cannot predict what projects will be undertaken in the next 20 years. Nor do they necessarily know specific project impacts. But courts have said project sponsors must still provide enough info to determine how long-tenn projects will impact the environment. County's main project is an 800-foot allegedly "only" $70 million" runway extension over a methane-emitting landfill, which requires placing hundreds of deep pilings through the landfill. County staff asks the Board of Supervisors to approve this project even though county has not conducted sufficient soil borings in the location of the interim and final runway extensions to determine (i) how accurate the pile placement estimates are and (ii) how much hazardous material will be brought up by its augurs, which drastically affects the cost of removing this material off site. County's Project Description Improperly Claim that the Conversion of Palomar from a B-II Airport to a "Modified D-III" Airport Keeps All New Airport Related Facilities Within the Existing Borders on the Northwest Corner of El Camino Areal and Palomar Airport Road. We understand that (i) county's proposed retaining walls require acquisition of some property and/or (ii) extending and moving the runway on the northwest corner of ECR and PAR will require placement of navigational aids on the northeast corner of ECR and PAR. If county disagrees, expressly warrant in the PEIR that neither of these statements is true and provide the names and info for the FAA staff that can confirm county's position. County's PEIR Fails to Provide Enforceable, Meaningful Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts Identified. Recall the credibility comment above. County in 1996 promised another state agency, the RWQCB, that county would use its best efforts to meet the water quality contaminant objectives set forth in the R W QCB order. Yet in 21 years, county reports every year in its monitoring reports that the contaminant levels exceed the objectives by anywhere from 200% to 1400%. RWQCB has imposed no penalty on county even though county has yet to present the written plan that RWQCB requested in both 2016 and 2017. The county 201.8 -2038 PMP Executive Summary, as related to mitigation for PMP biological impacts and traffic impacts, makes vague, unenforceable, contingent mitigation promises. How well does that work? County's PEIR Makes Almost No Effort to Identify Cumulative Project Impacts as Confirmed by Carlsbad's March 2018 Comments on the County PEIR. For 40 years County has Engaged in a Consistent Pattern of Airport Expansion Without an EIR or Significant Environmental Analysis Indicating that Its CEQA "Compliance" is a Sham. EIRs list possible project alternatives and their environmental impacts. In theory, county picks the best project considering environmental impacts. County is not supposed to pick a desired @) 5 o Some C and D aircraft began using Palomar because the extra 75 feet of runway width that county created allowed Palomar to accommodate the extra wingspan of C and D aircraft. o When questioned about C and D aircraft use, county replied that it could not control the aircraft that chose to use Palomar, omitting to mention that Palomar attracted such aircraft mainly because county had doubled the Palomar runway width. o In the 1990s, county requested that the FAA certify Palomar as a Part 150 airport to handle regularly scheduled commercial service. County did not ask Carlsbad to remove the CUP 172 Condition 8 limiting Palomar to providing "general aviation basic transport" services. o In 2009, county obtained FAA funding to dig up and rehabilitate the Palomar 4900-foot runway. After the rehabilitation contract award, it appears that county by change order asked the contractor to pour concrete with higher load ratings, presumably to accommodate heavier aircraft in the future. I I o In December 2015, when the Board of Supervisors reviewed the 2013 Palomar Runway Feasibility report (the basis for the 2018 PMP and prepared by the same consultant as the PMP), Supervisor Horn stated on the record that he favored a 900-foot runway extension even though the consultant at the meeting stated that only a maximum of 800 was possible. Mr. Horn also stated on the record (i) he favored extending the runway over the adjacent El Camino Real to the opposite side of the road and (ii) displacing the general aviation parking on the north terminal side. o In December 2016 -long before the BOS summer 2017 consideration of the PMP projects -the airport requested a several hundred thousand dollar FAA grant to study installation of a Palomar EMAS system. o In 2017 -to justify re-initiation of air carrier service at Palomar after a 9 to 18 month gap in service -county relied on a 20 year old document and a CEQA categorical exemption, which did not in any event evaluate the level of air carrier service that the new air carrier was projecting. Conclusion: History shows that county has engaged in a long course of conduct of (i) not only failing to satisfy state and FAA intergovernmental cooperation requirements but deliberately frustrating agreements already made with Carlsbad and (ii) proceeds with Palomar expansion even before considering environmental documents in good faith. D. • County Has Not Satisfied the Carlsbad, State, and Federal Laws Related to its PMP. Non-Compliance with Carlsbad Law. In 1977, county asked Carlsbad to annex the Palomar Airport into Carlsbad so Palomar could receive city services. In 1980, county asked Carlsbad to issue Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 defining 11 By our comments, we request county to provide the original 2009 contractor runway pavement requirements, the adjusted requirements, and how the change impacted the Palomar runway to handle aircraft placing higher loads on the runway. C!D 7 • • AirPort Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a detem1ination as to whether the proposed 2018-2038 PMP Projects Require the ALUC to Update the McClellan- Palomar Compatibility Land Use Plan. Non-Compliance with Obtaining an Updated State Division of Aeronautics Updated Operating Permit. In processing its PMP and PEIR, county has failed to show that it has or will timely comply with the above requirements so that county may obtain an updated Certificate to operate from the California Division of aeronautics pursuant to PUC Division 9 including PUC § 21664.5 related to d. · 14 exten mg airport runways. Noncompliance with the Airport and Airway Improvement Act ("AAIA") . Congressional policy precludes the FAA from spending grant funds on projects having significant environmental impacts when less environmentally impactful projects can be carried out. Review of past county actions suggests that county views CEQA as merely a procedural process that can be sidestepped by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and then approving a project despite its environmental impacts The Airport and Airway Improvement Act ("AAIA") says: "It is the policy of the United States -[] that the safe operation of the airport and airway system is the highest aviation priority." 49 U.S.C. §47101(a)(l). The AAIA also says that the FAA may grant federal funding for a major airport development project "found to have a significant adverse effect on natural resources, including fish and wildlife, natural, scenic, and recreation assets, water and air quality, or another factor affecting the environment, only after finding that no possible and prudent alternative to the project exists and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse effect." 49 U.S.C § 47106(c)(l)(B). [Emphasis added.] The county's own consultant SCS Engineers in its October 15, 2013 report [which county fails to provide anywhere in its 3000+ pages of its Programmatic EIR] describes the significant safety and environmental problems that a crash of a large fuel-laden C or D aircraft into the Palomar east runway end landfill could cause. Yet it is precisely this 19 acre into which county (i) proposes to extend its runway by up to 800 feet, (ii) attract more, larger, faster, fuel laden aircraft, thereby (iii) 14 PUC 21664.5 provides in relevant part:(a) An amended airport permit shall be required for every expansion ofan existing airport. An applicant for an amended airport permit shall comply with each requirement of this article pertaining ro permits.for new airports. The department may by regulation provide for exemptionsfi-om the opera/ion of this section pursuant to Section 2 I 66/, except that no exemption shall be made limiting the applicability of subdivision (e) a/Section 21666, pertaining to environmental considerations, including the requirement for public hearings in connection therewith. (b) As used in this section, "airport expansion" includes any of the following:(]) The acquisition of runway protection zones, as defined in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular l 50/1500-13, or of any interest in land for the purpose of any other expansion as set forth in this section. (2) The construction of a new runway. (3) The extension or realignment of an existing runway. ( 4) Any other expansion of the airport's physical facilities for the purpose of accomplishing or which are related to the purpose of paragraph (1), (2), or (3). C3!) 9 placing a downed aircraft directly in the middle of a methane, emitting landfill, which periodically has methane gas emissions exceeding the 5% explosive limit. Moreover, as the information provided above shows (i) county has failed repeatedly to comply with its past Palomar landfill mitigation requirements and (ii) the mitigation described in its 2018-2038 is vague, unduly conditioned, and largely unenforceable. Conclusion County established PMP and PMP PEIR to evaluate its PMP Alternatives as set forth in the table below.15 For the reasons above and in our detailed PMP and PMP PEIR comments, staff has failed to support converting Palomar from a B-II airport to any other FAA rated airport. County PMP/PEIR Listed Evaluation Factors to Select PMP Project Alternative • County's Preferred PMP Project Alternative is to convert Palomar from a B-II Airport to a "Modified D-III" Airport. • But extending the runway up to 800 feet on pilings through a 19-acre landfill to convert Palomar from its existing B-II status to a C or D status fails to meet the county listed evaluation criteria. Factor Bender Comments [Apply equally to a Palomar Mod D-III or C Alternative 1 Safety • Brings larger, faster, more fuel laden aircraft to middle of runway east end methane emitting landfill; • FAA 2011 Santa Monica Study Says B-II airports can safely handle C and D aircraft without an EMAS; • Since 1996, Palomar has annually handled 1,000 to 10,000 aircraft on the existing runway B-II. 2 Financial • Extending the runway on piles over the landfill costs Feasibility $100,000 a lineal foot v. 2009 FAA funded runway rehabilitation cost of $1,700 a lineal foot. • County won't even amortize its 2009 FAA runway grants until 2029. • If a $25 million EMAS is added, its cost needs to be added to the financial analysis as it is not a safety improvement but an inherent element of a runway extension, which could not be made in the absence of the EMAS. • Also, to construct the EMAS, county proposes a needless west runway end massive retaining wall so an airport service road around the airport can be relocated. No retaining wall is needed. Simply tunnel for 200 feet under the runway end to maintain the existing road. 15 SEE PMP PEIR Executive Summary, pp S-1 to S-2. @ 10 3 Avoid • County's preferred alternative is the most tenant disruptive Airport because it anticipates moving tenant buildings and/or moving Disruption GA parking off the airport. • Also, the extension will likely require shutting down the airport for extended periods due to the need for construction runway extension on hundreds of deep piles rather than the usual "cut and patch" runway extension method.16 4 Demand • As shown above, the existing Palomar B-II airport has very Accommo substantial existing excess capacity and future demand is dation minimal. 5 Remain • We are informed and believe that (i) relocating and/or on Airport extending the runway on the northwest corner of ECR and Property PAR requires modification of navigation facilities on the northeast corner of ECR and PAR and (ii) installing retaining walls would require acquisition of some non-airport property. Hence, we dispute county's claim that its projects do not require off airport development. 6 Environm • Extending the Palomar runway east to create either an FAA ental C-rated or D-rated airport is the most environmentally Imp~cts impactful project because (i) it requires placing several hundred very deep pilings through a linerless,19-acre Palomar runway east end landfill that a 6-month underground fire has likely converted some trash to hazardous waste, (ii) county already fails to f:11.eet R WQCB 1996 landfill contaminant objectives and drilling through the landfill will exacerbate the problem, (iii) relocating the runway north more directly impacts threatened biological species as discussed in the PEIR, and (iv) county already fails to meet the Carlsbad scenic corridor requirements. 7 Off site • Extending the runway eastward toward El Camino Real will Impacts impact offsite areas the most for two reasons. First, as noted above modifications to the FAA navigational facilities on the no1iheast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will be required. Second and more importantly, today landing aircraft approaching Palomar from the east touch down about 1200 feet from ECR, a major north-south arterial adjoining the airport on the east. If an EMAS is installed on the runway west end and the runway is extended 800 feet on the east end, aircraft approaching Palomar will have to touch down on the runway much sooner and approach much lower over thousands of ECR cars using the road continuously. 8 Eligibility • For the reasons detailed above -starting with county's 16 Amazingly, contractors today can replace several tennis side patches of aircraft pavement in less than 8 hours using quick drying materials. See the YouTube, Smithsonian video, "Xray Mega Airport." See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYlcfOJN4yk A al) 11 ·-- Director of Planning City of Carlsbad -.. -· December 3, 1979 Attached for your information is a summary of normal land uses which exist or can be expected at Palomar Airport. The Conditional Use Permit should include these uses and permit the construction of new facilities and modification of existing facilities for these uses subject to normal building permit process. Reference the attached Property Record Drawing, future develop- ment of Parcels 78-0943A, 77-0206A, 77-0207A, 71-0936A, and 79-1235A is anticipated. These parcels are not leased at present. If development of any unleased parcel is proposed in the future for a use not presently identified, additional land use actions would be required. As noted on the Plot Plan, the parcels south of Palomar Airport Road may be utilized for non-aviation purposes in the future. A motel/recreation center development on Parcel 7B-1234A is currently under consideration and has been the subject of separate correspondence to your office. The County Animal Shelter is an existing non-aviation use on ,airport property south of Palomar Airport Road. All other parcels at Palomar are on existing long-term aviation leases which allow lessees to undertake additional construction and/or modification of existing structures for permitted uses. Phil Safford, Palomar Airport Manager, is designated as Department of Transportation contact point for the processing of these applications. t{ MASSMAN ~~tor of Transportation RJM:PRS :bw Attachments (2) ·-~-- ,. ___ _ .. ___,,· (3) Aircraft hangar and tie-down rentals. (4) Aircraft leasing, rental and charter. (5) Airframe, engine, radio, naviqational and acces- sory equipment repair/ maintenance and modifica- tion. (6) Aircraft ground support equipment repair, main-· tenance and modification. (7) Aircraft cleaning services. (8) Aircraft painting. (9) Aviation fuel facilities. (10) Aircraft and engine mechanic schools. (11) Airlines, scheduled and non-scheduled.· (12) Air taxi and air ambulance services. (13) Air freight terminals and trans-shipment facilities. (14) Aerial crop dusting and spraying· enierprises. (15) Aerial fire fighting. (16) Aerial photography and surveying. (17) Parachute rigging sales and s~rvice. II~ The following uses are allowed if the Planning Com- mission determines that they are consistent with ~he airport facility: · · a. Incidental eo.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 are permitted in and are consistent with'the intent of the M Z~ne. III. The following uses are allowed if the Planning Director · determines they are consistent with and related to the airport facility: · DTJ:jt a. Signs -Identifico.tion, directional and safety signs. b. A single-family dwelling occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of such uso and his f11mily. . ...-.., Planning Commission Hearing 1 day (Both City of Carlsbad and Planning Commission want the BIS approved Negative Declaration) 7/7/98 CUP AMENDI\1ENT APPROVED IF NOT APPEALEb WITHIN 10 CALENDAR .. DAYS OF PLANNING CO:MMISSION ACTION. OR IF CUP APPEALED THE. MATTER WILL THEN BE PLACED ON.THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA FOR ACTION AND APPROVAL .. e BREAKDOWN OF FEES = Environmental Impact Assessment $220; Noticing Deposit Fee $500; CUP Amendment $80; Public Facility Fee (PFF) $50 (County Recorder may process this fee at no charge to Airports) . 9/19/97 .,,--... .. /] C ,f / !//~ (), f I. a. TABLE 1 August 28, 1998 The following uses ate permitted by this Conditional Use Petmit withoutthe need for . additional discretionary review: · · · · · · Structures and Facilities Airport structures 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 limited to the following: (1) Runway, taxiways, and parking aprons, including lighting. (2) Aircraft hangars, tie-down areas and maintenance buildings. (3) Air traffic control towers and facilities. These Federal Government facilities are governed by Federal/FAA standards for siting, size, height, and related parameters. (see Table 2) ( 4) Navigational aid equipment and structures. (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Airport Administration buildings, which may also include airport passenger terminal facilities, utility and other direct support buildings. (see Table 2) Airport passenger terminal buildings and facilities which may include as incidental thereto, consumer service establishments, including automobile rentals, taxi services, shuttle service, limousine, bus stop or other public transportation services, retail shops normally operated for the convenience of the users of the terminal facilities. Heliports and helicopter landing sites. Aviation fuel farms. Automobile parking lots and structures. (see Table 2) Buildings for housing operations and equipment necessary to the maintenance, security and safety, Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) services, of the airport. (see Table 2) b. Commercial Activities Commercial aviation activities as follows: ~ (TABLE 1) pg2 (1) Aviation flight and ground schools, including pilot and student equipment sales. (2) Aircraft sales, including radio and navigational equipment, parts, supplies and accessory equipment. (3) Aircraft hangar and tie-down rentals. (4) Aircraft leasing, rental and charter. (5) Airframe, engine, radio, navigational and accessory equipment repair, maintenance and modification. (6) Aircraft ground support equipment repair, maintenance and modification. (7) Aircraft cleaning services. (8) Aircraft painting. (9) Aviation fuel facilities and services. (10) Aircraft and engine mechanic schools. (11) Airlines, scheduled and non-scheduled. (12) Air taxi and air ambulance services. (13) Air freight terminals and trans-shipment facilities. (14) Aerial fire fighting. (15) Aerial photography and surveying. ( 16) Parachute rigging and service. (17) Aviation insurance . (18) Aviation related support and business services. II. The following uses are allowed if the Planning Commission determines that they are consistent with the airport facility: GD ii\ugu~t20, 2013 •·· · .. [Delivered in Person atAugust 20, 2013 Council Meeting] Carlsbad City Council Members Mayor Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tern, Mark Packard Keith Blackburn Farrah Golshan Douglas Lorraine Wood City Manager: John Coates City Clerk Ray Bender San Marcos, CA Email: Re: RayBe,uderCitizen Request Made attheCity.Coµp:cHAugy.1St,20, ~013 Meetiii'g ·Related to Palomar AirportRuhway,Extehsihn (1) Requestfor Council Position on Whether the County,~Recommended· Palomar Runway Extension Requires Amendment of Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 and a Vote of the Electorate Pursuant·to Carlsbad Ordinance No. 21.53.015 Because an Airport Facility is Being Expanded Within the Meaning of CUP 172 Condition 8 (among other reasons); (2) Request Pursuant to Carlsbad Charter Section 300 and Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that Carlsbad Hold a Public Brown Act Session to Discuss the County-Recommended Palomar Airport Runway Extension and the Application of Carlsbad CUP 172 and Municipal Code§§ 21.53.015 Honorable Council Members, City Manager Coates, and City Clerk: Qualifications: I am a retired attorney with 35 years of public sector experience including experience in planning and zoning matters. For several years, I also taught courses in Local Government Law as an adjunct law professor at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. I have authored two books in the Utrecht Series of Air C!ib 1 and Space Law. I am a Palomar Airport user and own a home several miles from Palomar affected by County expansion of the airport. I have spent the last 18 months examining more than 15,000 pages of FAA, Carlsbad, and County records and policies related to Palomar Airport Background: The County Kimley-Horn Runway Extension Feasibility Study I have reviewed the County Consultant, Kimley-Horn, August 1, 2013 Feasibility Study that the County commissioned to justify extending the Palomar Airport runway beyond 4900 feet. Kimley-Horn recommends installing a 300 foot safety system on the West side of the runway and a 900 foot runway capacity extension on the East side. The estimated cost ranges from $80 to $90 million. The County consultant recommends placing more than a 1000 piles through the landfill to "bridge" over the settling landfill waste. On August 15, 2013 the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee accepted the KH Study and forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors for action. At the PAAC meeting, County staff stated that it expected the Board to have the report before it at a September 2013 meeting.1 The County will use this KH Study to ask for FAA grant funding for the runway extensions. Background: Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 and Carlsbad Municipal Ordinance 21.53,015 Regarding Voter Approval of Palomar Airport Facility Expansion Carlsbad Municipal Ordinance §21.53.015 requires Carlsbad voters to approve Palomar Airport Expansion that requires a Carlsbad plan change, zoning, change, or other legislative action of the City Council. Carlsbad CUP 172 Condition 8 requires the County to apply for a CUP amendment when expanding the airport. Carlsbad CUP 172 allows the County to operate Palomar Airport for the Table 1 purposes without further Carlsbad approvals and within the area identified in Exhibit A subject to CUP conditions. When I requested a copy of Carlsbad CUP 172, I was provided a copy with a Table 1 dated September 24, 1980, the date of the Carlsbad adoption of CUP 172. Table 1 refers to Palomar taxiways but not to runways. 1 The County has suggested that the KH Study is part of its ongoing 2015-2035 Palomar Airport Master Plan and that citizens can comment on the MP and related environmental documents. True. But the County fails to note that the KH Study was prepared to satisfy the FAA Benefit-Cost Analysis process so that the County could qualify for up to 90% grant funding for the project. The time to comment on the completeness and accuracy of the KH Study is now. av 2 The County filed an application for the Carlsbad CUP on December 3, 1979. The County also submitted a proposed Table 1 that did include runways. Carlsbad deleted runways when adopting CUP 172.2 Even if Table 1 referred to runways, CUP 172 Condition 8 requires the County to seek a Carlsbad CUP amendment for expansion of its facilities. Moreover, the County would have to show that the extension is within the CUP 172 1980 Exhibit A Airport boundaries.3 CUP 172 Condition 8 is not ambiguous. It requires CUP 172 amendment for County Palomar Airport facilities. As the KH Study states, the 900 foot east runway extension is a "capacity" extension. It will both allow existing planes at Palomar to carry heavier loads and attract new aircraft not currently calling at Palomar to use the airport. As an airport fixed base operator stated at the August 15, 2013 PAAC meeting, once Palomar has more than a 5000 foot runway, it becomes desirable to many aircraft that do not currently see Palomar on various aircraft related computer database programs. Carlsbad Palomar Airport Requirements: Differences Between California Pacific Airline Using Palomar as a New Air Carrier & County Extending the Runway In January and February 2012, I made a similar request to the Carlsbad City Manager and to the Council to that made in this letter. The earlier request relied on CUP 172, Condition 11, related to the County maintaining Palomar as a General Aviation Basic Transport airport.4 My January request did not involve any County construction at Palomar Airport but rather CPA starting service. Accordingly, the analysis Carlsbad previously performed does not apply here as the facts and relevant CUP 172 provisions including Table 1, Exhibit A, and applicable conditions differ materially here. 2 No doubt the County would say that it needs runways to operate Palomar. True. The Carlsbad CUP 172 Table 1 deletion simply means that -unlike for its other Palomar improvements -the County does need the discretionary approval of Carlsbad to build runway extensions. A requirement independent of the CUP 172 expansion requirement. 3 It appears that the County acquired significant Palomar Airport land area after CUP 172 was adopted. It is not clear whether the proposed KH Study runway extension and associated taxiway extensions and related grading are all within the CUP 172 Exhibit A premises. Carlsbad needs to examine this issue as it affects the CUP 172 analysis. 4 The City Manager and City Council ignored my request and did not set the issue for a public hearing at which the public could be heard. I have explained at some length in Blogs 35 -40 posted over the last two months on Carlsbad.Patch.com why and how the Council failed to comply with its Charter, Municipal Code, and the Brown Act. ~ 3 Why Should Carlsbad Hold a Brown Act Public Hearing & Decide Whether a Palomar Airport Runway Extension Requires an Amendment to CUP 172 and Voter Approval? • Carlsbad Charter§§ 200 & 300. The Carlsbad City Charter is the City's constitution. Section 200 reserves Carlsbad policy decisions to the Council, not the City Manager. Also, Section 300 requires that voters participate in City land use decisions to the maximum extent possible. • Fiduciary Duties. Public officials have a fiduciary duty to explain and enforce Carlsbad laws. Thus far the City Council and City Manager have only addressed Palomar Airport land use issues behind closed doors without disclosures to the public. • Municipal Code Title 21 gives the City Council continuing jurisdiction over CUP 172 granted to the County including prospective amendments to the CUP and revocations for prospective County CUP violations. The public can't intelligently participate in such proceedings unless the Council forthrightly states its position on whether Palomar runway extensions trigger a CUP amendment and vote of the people. • Precedent. Presumably, Carlsbad expects CUP holders to abide by CUP-imposed conditions. When the City Manager in May 2013 essentially declared a County CUP 172 condition defunct, Carlsbad created a precedent. Carlsbad opened the door to many CUP holders asserting that they need not abide by certain CUP conditions. Such CUP holders can also argue discriminatory CUP enforcement. In other words, Carlsbad ignores CUP conditions for some and enforces the conditions against others. • Legal Liability. As the City Council is aware, California Pacific Airlines in December 2012 filed a claim against the County for $100 million alleging that the County had misrepresented its compliance with Carlsbad CUP 172. Only CPA knows whether CPA will proceed with a suit and possibly join Carlsbad as a defendant. If Carlsbad has any exposure, the exposure arises in large part from Carlsbad failing to timely take a position on the correct interpretation of CUP 172 between August 2012 and May 2013. If Carlsbad again fails to timely state its position, Carlsbad runs the risk of delaying the County Master Plan, the FAA's grant determination as to County eligibility for a runway extension grant, and related environmental work. Suits for damages and other legal remedies may result. Ill Ill@ 4 Specific Carlsbad Actions Requested • CUP 172 Table 1 & Exhibit A as a/September 1980. Provide me and the public a true and correct copy of CUP 172 on the date of the Council adoption in September 1980 so that the public may determine (1) whether a runway was or was not expressly listed in CUP 172 Table 1; and (2) what the Exhibit A land boundaries were for Palomar Airport terminal facilities north of Palomar Airport road. • CUP 172 Table 1 & Exhibit A as of August 2013. Provide me and the public a true and correct copy of CUP 172 Table 1 & Exhibit A [including modified drawings otherwise labeled such as A-1 or B] as of August 2013 so that the public may determine (1) whether a runway is currently listed in CUP 172 Table 1; and (2) what the land boundaries are for Palomar Airport terminal facilities north of Palomar Airport road today. • 1980 CUP 19 72 Table 1 and Exhibit A v. 2013 CUP 172 Table 1 & Exhibit A Differences. If the permitted uses in CUP 172 Table 1 in September 1980 differ from the uses in CUP Table 1 in 2013, provide me and the public the documents explaining the differences. If the CUP Exhibit A premises in September 1980 differ from the CUP Exhibit A [as possibly modified by Exhibits A-1, B or other exhibits] premises, provide the documents explaining the differences and how Exhibit A was amended. • Carlsbad Council Public Agenda Item. Schedule a Carlsbad Council Agenda public item to receive input from the public and from the County as to whether County requires a Carlsbad CUP 172 amendment and vote of the people to proceed with extending the Palomar runway. I have included this City Manager in this email to comply with the Carlsbad policy for requesting agenda items. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. 5 March 5, 2018 Ray & Ellen Bender San Marcos, CA 92078 Water Board Members: Chair: Felicia Marcus, Vice-Chair Steven Moore, Tam M. Doduc, Dorene D' Adamo, and E. Joaquin Esquivel and Executive Officer David Gibson c/o Qhr_is1in11J3J.?cnk@.W_c.lJ:~IQQ_ar_ds,_~iJ.gov and Dav_id.Gibson@_waterboards.ca.goy and John Odermatt at "john.odermatt@waterboards.ca.gov" 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92108 Re: WB Comments on the County of San Diego 2018-203 8 Palomar Airport Master Plan Program EIR Released l /18/18; Revised County Comment Due Date: March 19, 2018 [RWQCB should independently confirm the due date, time, and delivery location] Board Members & Mr. Gibson and Mr. Odermat: This letter follows up on our January 19, 2018 letter, which requested the Regional Water Quality Control Board [R WQCB or (WB) J to assign WB staff to comment on the 2018- 2038 Palomar Airport Master Plan (PMP) and Programmatic EIR (PEIR). We write for two reasons. First, to let you know that county extended its comment period to March 19, 2018. Second, to comment on the county PEIR, which we have now had a · chance to review. Unfortunately, we were in New Zealand for 3 weeks on a vacation scheduled a year ago and have only now been able to start our PEIR review. Many of our concerns were expressed to the RWQCB in November 2017 by the citizens group C4fa whose website can be accessed at C4fa.org. For many additional citizen Palomar Airport concerns, see the website https://www.savecarlsbad.com . As you know, the county, public, and courts give substantially more weight to comments ofregulatory agencies charged with protecting the public than they do to individuals. The purpose of this letter is to encourage WB staff to correct various misconceptions that we believe county has created in its PMP related to the seriousness of the water quality issues at Palomar Airport. After the comments of the public and RWQCB are published in the county Final PEIR, we will provide a copy of the collective water quality comments to the State Water Board so that the State Board may review the completeness and accuracy of the R WQCB comments. The main Palomar Airport water quality issues arise from county: (i) Failing to comply with WB Order 96-13 substantive requirements for the last 20-years; (ii) Failing to timely and substantively respond to several WB requests, including in 2016 and 2017, asking that county submit a plan to reach the @Order 96-13 contamination objectives -which county has exceeded for the last .20 years at levels from 100% to 1400% ( depending on the landfill contaminant and the year); (iii) County. annually failing to timely maintain the Palomar Airport Order 96- 13 eros10n control measures, which the Order incorporates from applicable regulations -as demonstrated by the landfill slope photos that county periodically files in its annual (periodic) R WQCB monitoring report, which more often than not show ugly, un-vegetated slopes with erosion rills as the rainy season is approaching; (iv) County's insistence that R WQCB restrictions prevent county from installing permanent, irrigated landscaping at Palomar Airport, despite the fact that successful restoration and re-vegetation measures have been accomplished on many landfill closures (apparently with WB approval) including but not limited to San Elijo landfill in the 1990s (which we understand has soccer fields over the landfill), the Frank R. Bowerman and Prima Desheca Landfills in Orange County, and the Calabasas Landfill in Los Angeles County; 1 (v) County failing to analyze how a more than 6-month underground fire in the 19-acre Unit 3 Closed Landfill at the east end of the Palomar runway (aa) converted formerly household waste to hazardous waste as the fire likely consumed tens of thousands of cubic yards of plastic, batteries, and household remodeling materials as county pumped chemicals underground to halt the fire and (bb) how the fire destroyed or adversely impacted the thousands of feet of subsurface underground landfill methane gas collection piping, which county records show the county consultants sometimes find results in methane gas emissions exceeding the 5% explosive regulatory limit; (vi) County's 2018-2038 PMP proposal to extend its runway up to 700-feet by puncturing the Palomar runway east end 19-acre landfill with hundreds of pilings, each 15 feet to 30 feet+ in length, by drilling large holes through the landfill cap through the bottom of the landfill (in order to achieve pile bearing strength to support the grade beams supporting the runway that would serve aircraft up to at least 90,000 pounds in weight; (vii) County failing to address the safety and environmental quality issues caused by the increasingly faster, heavier, more fuel laden aircraft raised by county's own consultant SCS Engineers in its October 2013 report, which we previously provided to you;2 1 See the Carlsbad-commissioner Technology Associates International Corporation (TAIC) Memo to Pam Drew, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad from Rosanne Hmphrey (TAlC) dated January 23, 2008) 2 County's 2018-2038 PMP says county wishes to (i) convert Palomar from an FAA 8-Il airport to an FAA-rated D-llI airport and (ii) relocate the existing runway and taxiways and extend them from the existing 4900 feet to 5700 feet over the Unit 3, 19 acre, runway east end landfill. @f) (viii) County failing to address the water quality clean up obstacles that county's runway extension will create if an aircraft crashes into the Palomar runway east end landfill and releases aviation fill and other toxic materials into the landfill. If that accident were to happen today, county could simply send 10 bulldozers to the site, dig as deep as needed through multiple layers of landfill, and haul away the contaminated material to a properly classified dumpsite. After county installs hundreds of pilings through the landfill, aviation fuel and firefighting chemicals inserted in waters pumped onto a downed aircraft will likely migrate among the pilings. The pilings will have only 6 inches to 36 inches of clearance below the newly extended runway. In short, county will likely have no effective way of timely removing the contamination short of digging up the extended runway. We recognize that the RWQCB has limited staff and a constantly growing list of projects to monitor. But the facts in this case are so egregious -and the county attempt to avoid discussing them in its 2018 -2038 PMP and PEIR so transparent -that the public environmental safety requires concerted RWQCB comments on the county PMP. To assist RWQCB, we include~ table below referencing various county PEIR language that the RWQCB may (or may not) wish to respond to and clarify. Unfortunately, we have not ourselves yet read the entire PEIR so our list below may be incomplete. We felt the water quality issue important enough to stop reading the PEIR and send this letter. We also understand that any review and comments of the RWQCB must result from its own independent review and be set forth in its own language. Partial List of County 2018-203 8 Programmatic EIR Comments Referencing McClellan- Palomar Water Ouality and Hazards Issues PEIR Page County Comment Comment/Question and/or~ 1 § 2.3 • County lists • However, county's duty is to discuss in Hazards & various laws, the EIR all issues for which a "fair Hazardous which sometimes argument" can be made that the issue Materials do require would concern the public and could (HM) discussion of potentially involve significant 2-49 to 2-special HM issues. environmental harm 69 2 2-49 • County lists a • County ignores its own SCS Engineers Ninyo & Moore October 2015 report evaluating how an air site assessment as crash would environmentally impact the a document of landfill. County operates 8 airports interest. including Palomar and Gillespie. The most recent crashes involving aircraft head to or from Gillespie were on December 17, 2017 and May 20, 2016. We are not aware of a crash at Palomar in G5:') 3 that (i) county's representations are fatally incomplete, (ii) do not fairly represent county's compliance with WB regulations and Order No. 96-13, and (iii) the water quality analysis parameters totally change once county announces a $70 million plan to make Swiss cheese out of a landfill formerly "containing" its waste? 2-1 to 2-16 § 2.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources As county notes, the extensive Palomar perimeter landscape slopes lie in the Carlsbad scenic corridor 2-6 to 2-7 County says RWQCB • As noted in our letter above, the county regs preclude contentions seem inconsistent with permanent, effective successful, permanent landscaping erosion control achieved at other landfills, apparently with measures and WB approval. irrigation • Moreover, county has not supported its concerns about possible perimeter Palomar landfill slope water penetration for the following reasons: (i) Absent soil borings in the perimeter area, Palomar has never shown the slope perimeters are over the landfill; (ii) County says a 3-foot protective clay liner protects the landfill top (though there is no bottom liner); (iii) Irrigation lines need not be place at the top of the landfill or on the slopes since irrigation lines can be run 15 fee from the toe of the slopes using rain birds to provide water on the slope; (iv) County's own consultant (Kimley-Horn) says that (59~ 7 3/8/2018 t' To: Mayor Matt Hall, City Attorney Celia Brewer Re: McClellan-Palomar Airport Road proposed Master Plan Requesting this letter be part of the public record. Mayor Hall and City Attorney Celia Brewer, All Receive· Agenda Item#~ ~6f.the Information of the: ®.COUNCIL ACM _j{_ CA ___u: CC _J:. Date~ CM ./ COO V I am writing to request Mayor Matt Hall recuse himself from any further Carlsbad City Council conver~ation and action regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport. The basis for my request is that Mayor Hall's independent judgement may be compromised by a long-demonstrated public bias to expanding the airport. I also consider hi~ l~ership of Carlsbad City Council during some questionable actions as incentive toward a predisposed position, again resulting in potentially clouded judgement on behalf of the citizens. Particular to Mayor Hall's long-demonstrated public bias, I would site the following: l. Article written by Alison St John, 9/24/2013 http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/24/ county-consider-extend ing-ru nway-mcclella n-pa I oma r / 2. Another article, qy Phil Diehl, 10/14/2015 quotes Mayor Hall: . "As proposed, the runway extension would improve airport safety without increasing noise for nearby residents, said Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall, who supports the proposal. A longer runway also is expected to make the airport safer. The proposed extension has the potential to stimulate North County's economy by increasing business at the airport, Hall said. It would enable regional jet aircraft to use the facility, bringing new commerce into the North County region." http:ljmyemail.constantcontact.com/Pulse-of-North-County-October-14th---·McCfellan·Palomar- Airport·Extension-Proposal-to·be-Discussed-on·Oct·-22.html?soid=ll032110711ll&aid=8jXEnE06A84 3. Transcribed from Citizens' Academy 5/25/17 in response to the clarified question "When will the electorate in Carlsbad vote on it (the Airport)?" .. .A portion of the Mayors response is "5 or. 10 attorneys in here, you'd get 5 or 10 different answers ... ", but the City has been unwilling to allow citizen attorneys to question their hired outside council. How does that match with the comment about "5 or 10 attorneys in here"? Seems the Mayor is saying one thing but doing another. The action seems to support a predisposition, not to serve the citizens. The video actually takes a position about "expansion" that s.tates only a second runway or an expansion outside the current footprint is a vote-eligible "expansion". This defies any credibility based on CUP 172, and is a bending of facts to suit a long held position, thus again, the question regarding compromised independent judgement. 4. More important to the question of recusal is some very interesting changes to the Carlsbad General Plan. Prior to 2015, the General Plan identified and described the Airport as a "general aviation airport" and contained the following specific Goal and Objective in the Land Use Element: A. Goal - A city which balances the needs of the existing general aviation airport with the needs of the citizens of the city. B. Objective -To encourage the continued operation of McClellan-Palomar Airport as a general aviation airport. When the Updated General Plan was approved, the above goal and objective was deleted from the Land Use Element and was replaced with the following description of the airport in the Public Safety Element: "a Class 1 Commercial Service airport that serves all types of scheduled operations of large carrier aircraft (31 or more passenger seats) as well as smaller general aviation aircraft." Since the General Plan Update was a legislative action, the deletion of the Goal and Objective from the Land Use Element identifying and encouraging the continued operation of the airport for general aviation use and amended it to identify it primarily for expanded commercial service should have required a public vote per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.015 and that part of the Updated General Plan was done in violation of the Section. The Mayor has literally paved the way for the County to do what they want. Statute of limitations may be up on this issue, however it happened under Mayor Hall's leadership and creates a very awkward (if not unethical) situation now that the Mayor is being called upon to make another decision for the citizens of Carlsbad regarding the Airport. Mayor Hall's immediate recusal from all issues pertaining to the proposed McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan is necessary, so as to allow Carlsbad clearly unbiased representation and decision making. Response requested with acceptance of recusal via a signed affidavit is anticipated prior to March 13, 2018 City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Concerned Carlsbad Resident From: hope nelson Reply-To: 11 Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:30 PM To: "matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov" <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>, Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Mayor Hall re McClellan-Palomar Proposed Master Plan I Attachment respectfully submitted. Please review. 2 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Subject: Jan Bandich Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:39 PM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Michael Schumacher; Cori Schumacher; Manager Internet Email; Celia Brewer; City Clerk No Airport Expansion -Citizens Have a Vote I will not repeat the numerous illustrious arguments opposing expansion of the McClellan-Palomar Airport made by other concerned citizens in the region and the fallacies and shortcomings of the proposed Master Plan Update and Program E:nvironmental Impact Report, as outlined by people much better informed than I. We all know the negative effects of noise levels, air pollution (in an already highly polluted air space), safety, property values, and multiple other valid arguments about the impact of expanding the airport size and commercial use, but my concern is that this goes to the heart of our democracy, We are not a third world dictatorship, this is the United States of America where the Constitution is the rule of law and validates that citizens have the right to vote. I have little respect for lawyers who tell us the hierarchy of power is federal, state, county, city, then residents the very last -that is totally upside down, this country is all about citizens having the right to have their say. ' Carlsbad Municipal Code #21.53.015 states that Carlsbad residents get to vote on a county McClellan-Palomar Airport expansion. In 2015 the California Supreme Court ruled that Citizens' Initiatives are the highest form of law in California. There are many issues, points of view, and1 many who believe that airport expansion is a good thing for the future, as well as those who believe a B-11 airport is safe and sufficient, therefore it seems reasonable to let the citizens vote to make their choice. We live here and are the ones who are impacted, not the ones who live elsewhere making an investment. Sincerely, Janis Bandich Carlsbad Resident Registered Voter May you always have: Love to share, Friends who care, and Health to spare. 1 Jason Haber From: Frank Sung Sent: To: Sunday, March 11, 2018 11:20 PM Jason Haber Subject: Fwd: We Want A VOTE THAT MATTERS re Palomar Airport Exp_ansion --Forwarded message -- From: Frank Sung Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:16 PM Subject: Fwd: We Want A VOTE THAT MATTERS re Palomar Airport Expansion To: clerk@carlsbadca.gov, iason.habar@carlsbadca.gov Thank you for including this in the meeting records. --Forwarded message -- From: Frank Sung <franksung01@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 10:40 PM Subject: We Want A VOTE THAT MATTERS re Palomar Airport Expansion To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov, keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov, mark.packard@carlsbadca.gov, Michael Schumacher <m ichael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>, Cori Schumacher <cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov> Hi Carlsbad Council Members - I am asking you to give the residents a VOTE THAT MATTERS. We can debate what the conditional use permit and municipal ordinance say (ie hide behind the "technical" interpretation or agree what the 11 intent11 was). The fact is that this is a democracy and you, the council members, were elected to listen to the residents and defend our city's rights. A VOTE THAT MATTERS means that if the residents of Carlsbad do not want an airport runway expansion, we want the City of Carlsbad to aggressively contend against the County's plans to-expand the airport. This is what aggressively contend on behalf of the residents looks like ... http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-newport-faa-settlement-20180109- story.html Frank Sung 1 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: To City Council, Graham Thorley < Sunday, March 11, 2018 2:50 PM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Cori Schumacher; Michael Schumacher; Manager Internet Email; Celia Brewer; City Clerk; Jason Haber Los Angeles City Leter to FAA Letter-to-D-Elwell_FAA_re-Metroplex-Noise-3-5-18.pdf As I stated in my February 20ilitestimony, FAA's NextGEN and Metroplex are not fully implemented at Palomar. However when they will be fully implemented after Palomar's runway gets extended, Carlsbad and its surrounding communities will have the same sleep depriving airport noise misery as Los Angeles and the communities around John Wayne Airport. That said, they are not alone, communities all over the country are in the same situation. Attached is a letter from the Los Angeles City Attorney and various LA Council Members to Daniel Elwell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. This letter will give the Council a pointed idea of the misery that will befall Carlsbad if the airport expansion is not stopped. It must be emphasized the LA City letter is not in the minority. All over the country, city officials are writing the same type ofletters to the FAA, their Senators and Congress Representatives. _ With the above information, Carlsbad is in a unique position with Ordinance 21.53.915 and CUP 172 created by Carlsbad citizens in 1979 and passed by a City Council in 1980. That council believed its citizens had the right to determine their future. That said, let me reiterate - I want a VOTE, a real VOTE, not an advisory vote, the VOTE guaranteed by Ordinance 21.53.015. Thank you, Graham R. Thorley 1 Daniel K. Elwell Acting Administrator F ederai Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Dear Acting Administrator Elwell: March 5, 2018 We have received an unprecedented number of complaints of noise and other negative impacts attributed to increased and shifted aircraft traffic occurring at altitudes below what FAA represented to the community along the Interstate 10 Freeway corridor (SoCal Metroplex Northern Downwind Arrivals), represented by City Attorney Mike Feuer, City Council President Herb Wesson (CDl0), Council Member Marqueece Harris-Dawson (CD8), and Council Member Mike Bonin (CDl 1). Residents, including those who live in predominantly low-income and minority neighborhoods, report that their quality of life has suffered dramatically, just within the last few months. The purposes of this letter are to request: (1) a meeting as soon as possible with the FAA Regional Administrator and representatives of the Air Traffic Organization regarding how we may work together to address this serious problem as quickly as possible; (2) copies of any pertinent documents that reflect policy decisions, actions, orders, or resolutions (in.eluding settlement), which relate to any changes in the altitude levels and flight paths over the City of Los Angeles since SoCal Metroplex was implemented; and (3) that Los Angeles participate in any discussions between the FAA and Culver City regarding flight path and altitude issues. The complaints appear in part to be caused by aircraft routinely flying below 6,000 feet at the DAHJR waypoint (located at approximately W. Jefferson and S. Redondo Boulevards in the City of Los Angeles) on Northern Downwind Arrivals. FAA' s published RNA V procedures require aircraft to fly above . 6,000 feet at that location. However, data demonstrate that more than 65% of aircraft have been below that altitude restriction in recent months. We believe our constituents would experience meaningful relief if FAA enforced, unless a deviation is needed for safety, this minimum altitude and ultimately substantially increased it at this waypoint well above 6,000 feet. While we understand that FAA has been discussing changes to improve altitude fidelity, accelerated efforts are critical to address this community need. Daniel K. Elwell Page 2 The City is also concerned about low flights further east at the GADDO waypoIDt, roughly located over downtown Los Angeles. As you know, downtown Los Angeles is densely populated and contains some of the tallest and most distIDctive buildings ill'the western United States. There are numerous security and safety concerns related to low flights in and around downtown Los Angeles. If FAA insists on the Northern Downwmd Arrival flight path to intrude over downtown, FAA should implement a mmimum altitude as high as possible and enforce that restriction. It is our understanding that despite repeated requests by Los Angeles residents and other participants ID the LAX Noise Roundtable for explanations from FAA representatives concerning these issues, FAA has provided vague responses, even suggesting that due to pendIDg litigation, representatives are unable to answer basic questions. F AA's approach to date is not effective or respectful of our communities. Instead, FAA Regional Administrator and representatives of the Air Traffic Organization should meet with us as soon as possible to address these concerns and work quickly to find solutions. ~ In that same spirit, we would like a representative of the City Attorney's office to p~icipate ID any discussions that may yet occur between FAA and Culver City regarding flight paths for LAX. Resolution of Culver City's litigation against FAA and implementation of any changes to the So Cal Metroplex or related flight paths would clearly have a significant impact on Los Angeles. Indeed, there is a high likelihood, if not a certainty, that a change in flight paths will affect more residents of the City of Los Angeles than residenJs of any other city, effects which will undoubtedly impact the City of Los Angeles for years to come. Moreover, any changes would need to be coordinated with the City of Los Angeles both as the owner of LAX pursuant to FAA Order JO 7100.41A and other orders and as part of the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(:t) of the Department of Transportation Act processes. For further information or to schedule a meeting, please contact Chief Assistant City Attorney David Micha~;;ulook fonvard :2:,7~ly at your earlie& conv~ence. · JcZLN.FEUER ~ ~s~~/ City Atto y, City of Los Angeles President, Los Angeles City Council ti MI BONIN Councilmember, 11th District MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON Councilmember, 8th District cc: The Honorable Dia.~e Feinstein, United States Senate The Honorable Kamala Harris, United States Senate The Honorable Karen Bass, United States House of Representatives The Honorable Ted Lieu, United States House of Representatives Dennis Roberts, Regional Administrator, FAA, Western-Pacific Division Deborah Flint, Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles World Airports Los Angeles City Council Members Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, , Dee Forsberg, Global Hire Monday, March 12, 2018 7:55 AM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Michael Schumacher; Cori Schumacher; City Clerk; Jason Haber Palomar Airport Newport and FAA reach settlement to move John Wayne Airport departures clos ... By Hillary Davis Newport Beach has reached a tentative settlement with the Federal Aviation Administration in the city's lawsuit, __ I am a long-term resident of Carlsbad and was around when the citizens requested any airport expansion be put before the citizens to vote on. The '.'purpose and objective" of the right to vote was to protect our community from exactly what is happening now (increased noise at all hours, pollution, and aircraft coming in over properties at dangerously low levels, etc). It was to protect our quality of life, health, the environment and our property values. The airport was for "pleasure" aircraft., As elected officials, you have a responsibility to listen to your constituents, defend our city's rights and the quality of life of the residents. You took your position knowing these were your responsibilities and part of your job description. We want and desire an opportunity to voice our opinion by voting on the issue. Thereafter, the city can determine what our next steps are in the process and defend the citizen's position one way or the other. Thank you 1 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please distribute to council. From: areysbergen@ Council Internet Email Monday, March 12, 2018 7:56 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk FW: Benefits of Airfield Alternative 1 --Palomar Airport Master Plan Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 7:58 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Benefits of Airfield Alternative 1--Palomar Airport Master Plan , 5.6.1.2 Benefits of Airfield Alternative 1 +H Construction of EMAS enhances airfield safety +H Lower'estimated construction cost as runway maintains existing configuration +H Improves areas at Runway End 06, including areas on blast pad that exceed B-11 grading design standards +H Improvements remain on Airport property, minimal adverse impact to landside or off-Airport activity +H Minimal impact (encroachment) on general aviation/FBO operations ~H Satisfies Airport users who have identified that maintaining existing runway width is extremely important +H The alternative does not impact existing North Ramp area or aircraft parking in that area +H No change in the size of runway protection zones +H No direct impacts to immediately adjacent offsite development or roadways as a resident, property owner in Carlsbad and registered VOTER in San Diego County .. I earnestly request that Airfield Alternative 1 be adopted... NO Airport Expansion ! ! thank you, alice reysbergen 1 Jason Haber From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:58 AM Morgen Fry Cc: Jason Haber; City Clerk Subject: FW: Support for Palomar Airport Expansion Plan alternative 1 Morgen, Please distribute to council. Andi From: David Baik [mailto:c Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 7:53 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: David Baik <djbaik@gmail.com> Subject: Support for Palomar Airport Expansion Plan alternative 1 Hi, We live in Bressi Ranch and we support the best Palomar Airport Expansion Plan for our Carlsbad community airport by asking for Airfield Alternative 1 for keeping our community safe, while preserving our quality of life and working toward a friendly airport. 5.6.1.2 Benefits of Airfield Alternative 1 H Construction of EMAS enhances airfield safety H Lower estimated construction cost as runway maintains existing configuration H Improves areas at Runway End 06, including areas on blast pad that exceed B-11 grading design standards H Improvements remain on Airport property, minimal adverse impact to landside or off-Airport activity H Minimal impact (encroachment) on general aviation/FBO operations H Satisfies Airport users who have identified that maintaining existing runway width is extremely important H The alternative does not impact existing North Ramp area or aircraft parking in that area H No change in the size of runway protection zones H No direct impacts to immediately adjacent offsite development or roadways 5.6.1.2 5.6.1.2 .· Thank you! Sincerely, David and Chungbin Baik 1 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Suzie Thorley < Monday, March 12, 2018 9:10 AM Jason Haber; Attorney; City Clerk Suzanne Thorley Missing Attachments in my letter of March 8, 2018 Schools within 5 mile radius of CRQ.xlsx To: Jason Haber, Attorney, Clerk March 12, 2018 Subject: Missing attachments in my letter of March 8, 2018 I've just looked at Item #8 -Additional Correspondence received as of Mar. 9, 2018 on city website and see that only one of the five spreadsheets (Parks and Open Spaces) from my letter had been attached to the agenda packet. In my previous letter I should have been more specific, there are five tabs across the bottom, each contain a different worksheet: (1) Schools (2) Parks & Open Spaces (3) Retirement/Senior Communities (4) Golf Courses (5) Churches Again, I am attaching the spreadsheet with the five (5) worksheets and would appreciate attaching those to my previous letter. Respecfully, Suzie Thorley 1 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:30 PM Morgen Fry Cc: Jason Haber; City Clerk Subject: FW: No -on Palomar Airport Extension/Expansion --the Legoland effect.... Morgen, Please distribute to Council. Andi From: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:18 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: No -on Palomar Airport Extension/Expansion --the Legoland effect .... , I haven't heard much talk about LEGOLAND ... children, children, children with increased air traffic -from an expanded/extended runway -corporate jets heavily loaded with jet fuel to fly non- stop to China as well as commercial flights already in the making ... ALL planes lift off -OVER LEGO LAND ! ! take offs and landings are the most dangerous moments in air travel ! ! a corporate jet fully loaded with jet fuel to fly non-stop to China would make. a BIG splash CRASH landing at LEGO LAND .... probably not good PR for Carlsbad sincerely ... a/ice reysbergen resident, property owner and registered VOTER 1 A B C D E F 1 56 SCHOOLS WITHIN A 5 MILE RADIAS OF PALOMAR AIRPORT 2 ENROLL MILES SCHOOLS PHONE# CONTACT REMARKS 3 0.92 Aspirations Preschool 603"9173 4 1.61 Poinsettia Elementary 331-6550 5 1.67 Aviara Oaks Middle School 331-6100 6 1.69 Poinsettia KinderCare 435-0001 7 1.73 Pacific Ridge 448-9820 8 1.73 Aviara Oaks Elementary 331-6000 9· 1.80 Carlsbad Country Day School 507°0550 10 1.89 Pacific Rim Elementary 331-6200 11 2.12 Sage Creek High School 331-6600 12 2.30 Discovery Isle Preschool 431-7090 13 2.31 Kelly Elementary 331-5800 14 2.40 Carrillo Elementary 290-2900 15 2.47 Arms Montessori Academy 858-222-1997 16 2.60 Rancho Carrillo l<inderCare 431-2558 ? 17 2.60 Halstrom Academy 866-870-7563 18 2.61 The Classical Academy of Vista 330-9800 19 2.61 Parkhurst Preschool 438-3114 20 2.62 The Goddard School 730-9450 ~ 21 2.75 La Costa Meadows Elementary 290-2121 22 2.79 El Camino Creek Elementary 943-2051 23 3.12 Rancho Bueno Vista High School 727~7284 24 3.15 Calavara Hills Elementary 331-6300 25 3.15 Calavera Hills Middle School 331-6400 26 3.33 Hope Elementary 331-5900 27 3.36 Lake Elementary 945c5300 28 3.40 Madison Middle School 940-0176 ----- 29 3.50 Magnolia Elementary 331-5600 30 3.50 Montessori School of Oceanside 941+3883 31 3.52 Discovery Isle Preschool 877-959°3714 A B C D E F 32 3.53 Valley Middle School 331-5300 33 3.59 Jefferson Elementary 331-5500 34 3.67 Capri Elementary 644-4360 35 3.68 Carlsbad High School 331-5100 36 3.68 Saint Patrick's Catholic School 729-1333 37 3.81 Prestige Preschool Academy 891-0902 38 3.86 La Costa Valley Preschool & Kinder 436-2797 39 3.92 La Costa Heights Elementary School 944-:-4375 40 4.09 Casa Montessori de Carlsbad 729-4455 41 4.17 KrugerHouse Preschool 434-2851 42 4.18 Breeze Hill Elementary School 945-2373 43 4.24 Le Porte Montessori Carlsbad Village 230-4230 44 4.25 San Marcos High 290-2200 45 4.32 Monarch at Shadowridge 374-4165 46 4.33 North High Tech (San Marcos} 759-2700 47 4.35 Tri City Christian School (Vista} 724-3016 48 4.46 Mission Estancia Elementary School 943-2004 49 4.49 Saint Joseph Academy 305-8505 50 4.54 Alvin Dunn Elementary (San Marcos}, 290-2000 51 4.55 Mira Costa College 757-2121 52 4.64 Valley Christian School (San Marcos} 744-0270 53 4.65 Vista Adult School 758-7122 54 4.68 Bueno Vista Elementary 331-5400 - 55 4.69 Village Gate Children's Academy 815-4818 56 4.81 La Costa Canyon High School 436-6136 57 5.00 Army and Navy Academy 762-2338 58 5.77 All Saints Preschool 598-8495 59 60 61 A B 1 Miles 67 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES 2 1.00 Business Park Recreational Facility 3 1.00 Carlsbad Skate Park 4 1.02 Aviara Community Park 5 1.16 Topiary Park 6 1.25 Alga Norte Community Park 7 1.28 Bressi Square 8 1.44 Bressi Ranch Gazebo Park 9 1.48 Boys & Girls Club, Bressi 10 1.78 Legoland i 11 1.90 Poinsettia Community Park 12 1.94 Sea Life Aquarium 13 1.94 Legolarid Chima Water Park 14 2.29 Flower Fields 15 2.30 Laguna--Rivera City Park - 16 2.43 Carlsbad Premium Outlets 17 2.51 Leo Carrillo Ranch Historical Park 18 2.63 Carlsbad Lagoon Dog Park 19 2.67 Batiquitos Lagoon 20 2.68 Agua Hedonia 21 2.69 Buena Vista Park 22 2.69 Carlsbad Poinsettia Station 2T - -2Ji9 ·La costa-Me·aa-ows-rnene· Fark ·· ---· --· -------- 24 2.75 Car Country Park 25, 2.84 Calavara Hills Community Park 26 2.98 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground 27 13.17 Simmons Family Park 28 3.27 Cannon Park 29 3.35 Oak Riparian Park 30 3.35 Lake Park 31 3.46 La Costa Canyon Park 32 3.71 Tri Gity Crossroads Shopping Center 33 3.73 Hidden Canyon Community Park 34 3.86 Shadowridge Park 35 3.96 Lavante School Park 36 3.96 Sunset Park 37 3.99 La Costa Valley Tire Swing Park 38 4.00 Sunset Park (San Marcos) 39 4.11 Thibodo Park 40 4.12 Holiday Park 41 4.15 Pine Avenue Park / 42 4.16 Chase Field A B 43 4.21. Breeze Hill Park 44 4.34 Mahogany Park 45 4.35 Rancho Ponderosa Park 46 4.36 Rancho Ponderosa Park 2 47 4.37 Forum . 48 4.37 Harding Community Center 49 4.44 Stage Coach Community Park 50 4.46 Boys &,Girls Club, Ca~lsbad 51 4.46 Scott Valley Park 52 4.50 Bradley Park 53 4.62 Hosp Grove Park ' 54 4.64 Rotary Park ~ 55 4.64 Falls.view Park 56 4.65 Leo Mullin Sport~ Park 57 4.67 The John.Landes Skate Park 58 4.68 North County Square 59 4.71 Carlsbad Village Station 60 4.88 Magee Park 61 4.90 San Elijo Hills Hilltop Field 62 4.91 Army & Navy Sports Complex 63 4.94 Joseph Sepulveda Park 64 4.95 Orpheus Park 65 4.96 San Elijo Park Lower Baseball Field 66 4.97 San Elijo Hills Dog Park 67 4.99 San Elijo Park 08 4.99 Maxton Brown Park MILES 19 RETIREMENT/SENIOR COMMUNITIES 1.40 ActiveCare at Bressi Ranch 1.98 Sunrise at La Costa 2.12 Kisko Senior Living 2.13 Fleming Elderly Care Home ' 2.73 Solomar Mobile Estates 3.57 La Costa Glen 3.60 Aegis Living of Shadowridge 3.61 Lil Jackson Senior Community 3.66 Merrill Gardens 3.74 Brookdale Oceanside 3.95 Tavarua Senior Apartments . 4.00 Chateau Lake San Marcos 4.05 Brookdale Carlsbad 4.05 The Meridian at Lake San Marcos 4.09 Vista Village Senior Living 4.40 Brookdale San Marcos 4.62 Las Villas de Carlsbad 4.75 Carlsbad by the Sea Retirement Community 5.00 Heritage Hills .· .. · l\lliL:Es 9 G.dlF COURSES 1.12 The Crossings Golf 1.49 Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course 2.35 Ocean Hills Country Club -Oceanside 2.43 Aviara Golf 2.50 La Costa Golf 3.72 St. Mark Executive Golf course -San Marcos 4.11 Shadow Ridge Golf Club 4.16 Encinitas Ranch Golf Course 4.60 El Camino Country Club MILES 28 CHURCHES 0.63 Calvary Chapel Carlsbad 0.73 The Fields Church 0.76 Faith Community Church 0.87 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness (C'bad) 0.93 Rancho Del Rey Church 1.00 Holy Cross Episcopal Church 1.09 Redemmer By The Sea Lutheran Church 1.24 St. Katherine Orthodox Church - 1.38 North Coast Calvary Chapel 1.61 Discover Life Church 1.63 C3 Church San Diego North Campus 2.59 New Venture Christian Fellowship 2.64 St. Elizabeth Sexton Catholic Church 3.19 Meadowlark Community Church 3.55 St. Thomas More Catholic Church 3.60 Church of Christ Palomar 3.60 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness (Vista) 3.62 Pilgrim Congregational Church 3.64 Pilgrim United Church of Christ 3.68 St. Patrick Catholic Church 3.68 Coast line church 4.10 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnes,s (Vista) 4.18 Vista Samoan Seventh Day Adventist 4.33 Carlsbad Community Church 4.36 Church of Christ 4.45 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness 4.50 Daybreak Community Church 4.87 St. Michaels by the Sea Episcopal Church Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Morgen, Please distribute to council. Andi From: Anne Hempy [mailto:a Council Internet Email Monday, March 12, 2018 11:56 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk FW: Carlsbad airport expansion -we would like a vote! Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 10:18 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouhcil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Carlsbad airport expansion -we would like a vote! Carlsbad City c.ouncil: My husband and I have been residents of Carlsbad since 2012 and we have seen an increase in air traffic over our house in the past 6 years. ,We are opposed to the runway lengthening project which will allow large jets and international flights to fly in and out of Carlsbad. We are contacting you to request that this project be put to a vote for the Carlsbad residents to express their opinions. Our property values would likely be negatively impacted by this project, therefore my husband and I would like to be able to cast our votes in opposition. Thank you for your consideration. Anne Hempy Carlsbad, CA 92011 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Morgen, Please distribute to council. Andi -----Original Message----- From: Lisa [mailto:c Council Internet Email Monday, March 12, 2018 11:57 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk FW: Let the residents vote! Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:02 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Let the residents vote! When it comes to important matters, like the airport, that affects every resident in the city, it seems very appropriate to let the residents vote on the matter. - You would think by now the Carlsbad council would know what happens when you qon't allow the residents to participate in their own town's future. If you can't represent the residents or even listen, we are forced to represent ourselves in referendums and initiatives. Let the people vote. 1 Jason Haber From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Louie <s Monday, March 12, 2018 12:08 PM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Michael Schumacher; Cori Schumacher; City Clerk; Jason Haber Palomar Airport Expansion Hi Carlsbad Council Members -I am asking you to give the residents a VOTE THAT MATTERS. We can debate what the conditional use permit and municipal ordinance say (ie hide behind the "technical" interpretation or agree what the "intent" was). The fact is that this is a democracy and you, the council members, were elected to listen to the residents and defend our city's rights. 1 ... .. March 13, 2018 Mayor Matt Hall City of Carlsbad ~ CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-931-8400 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: City comment letter on County of San Diego McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Mayor Hall and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce I respectfully urge you to approve the City comment letter to the County of San Diego on the Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report For over 95 years the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has worked to promote a favorable business climate for the 1,600 businesses and more than 75,000 employees in and around the City of Carlsbad. This is why we pay close attention to issues in Carlsbad that could impact not only the ability of local businesses to thrive, but also matters that could impact the quality of life in our community. The Carlsbad Chamber is the second largest chamber in San Diego County and among the top ten in the State. Palomar Airport is among the largest employers in Carlsbad with over 400 individuals working at on-airport businesses. When accounting for the economic impact of these businesses, their employees, and the impact of visitors traveling through the airport, the airport generates over 2,500 jobs, $92M in personal income, $345M in business revenue and $20M in State and local taxes each year. The improvements described in the Master Plan Update will enable the airport to support the transition to more modern jet aircraft with longer wingspans and enhance safety both lengthening the runway, separating the runway and taxiway implementing EMAS devices to prevent runway overruns. Our members are most excited about the prospect of commercial air service from multiple carriers and service to multiple destinations. Such air service will allow our members to reduce their total travel times, allow our businesses to compete globally as travel to and from these businesses is enhanced, encourage a number of greater leisure travelers and meeting attendees, and provide all residents with superior options as compared to long drives to and long lines at the San Diego or Orange County airports. We understand that regional air carriers are increasingly challenged to operate at the airport under its current configuration. The retirement of its turboprop equipment and the insufficiency of the Palomar runway length to accommodate regional jets were cited by Skywest Airlines when they terminated their United Express service in 2015 The Master Plan improvements have the potential to multiply the current economic impact of the airport. While the increased activity results in increased tax revenue and City funding, protection of our quality of life is important not only to residents but also to businesses operating within the vicinity of the airport. We share concerns about noise, emissions, traffic, visual impacts, and the effects of the Master Plan on nearby land uses. While the Draft EIR suggests that any significant effects can be mitigated, we greatly appreciate the questions and clarifications sought in the City's comment letter. We are indebted to both City staff and interested residents in documenting these concerns. We understand this Master Plan is only the beginning of a process and much remains uncertain including the final design, timing and funding of improvements. We are optimistic that the County will provide additional information both now and in the future that will be helpful to the business community and residents. We look forward to being a part of the ongoing effort, focusing on the best outcome for future of the Carlsbad community and our airport Sincerely, Ted Owen President & CEO CC: County of San Diego " ATTORNEYS AT LAW VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION & HAND DELIVERY March 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Matt Hall, Mayor Pro-Tern Keith Blackbum, and Councilpersons Mark Packard, Michael Schumacher, Cori Schumacher City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: SUPPORT FOR ITEM #8 City Council Hearing March 13, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. Please Add to the Record on This Item Dear Honorable Persons: This Firm is located in the City of Carlsbad, I as well as my children and grandchildren and many of our staff live in the City of Carlsbad. My almost 40 year legal career in various aspects of land use has taken me all over the State of California. The City of Carlsbad in my opinion based on experience has been, and hopefully will continue to be, one of the most conscientious and sensitive Cities in basing decisions upon what is best in the long term for the City's residents. I have reviewed the County's proposed Master Plan and DEIR, the comments from the Carlsbad residents and the City's proposed comments to the County documents. The City comments incorporate the valid concerns of the residents and added additional comments for the long term protection of the City and its residents. In summary, the proposed comment letter is comprehensive and clear. I strongly support the submission of the comment letter to the County. In reviewing the "opposition materials', there is an issue which I entitle "political misdirection". The County's general plan is not an expansion of the airport. The airport remains on the same county owned property as the existing airport. The improvements contemplated under the County's general plan, if implemented, will provide a long term useable airport with enhanced safety. As to the benefits of the proposed County plan, I hereby incorporate as though fully set forth here at the correspondence from Ahmed Haque, President of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. 5760 FLEET STREET, SUITE 110 •CARLSBAD• CALIFORNIA• 92008 T: 760.431.2111 • F: 760.431.2003 • WWW.LOFTINFIRM.COM • SLOFTIN@LOFTINFIRM.COM r THE LOFTIN FIRM, P.C. Mayor and City Council of Carlsbad Hearing 3-13-18 Item #8 Page 2 of 2 . Based on the mischaracterization of the County's general plan proposal for the airport as an extension of the airport, there appears to be a movement to call for a vote of the residents on the airport issues as mis-defined by those in opposition. First, a petition and vote is not appropriate under the limits of the County proposal; second, the impact of a vote would not change the very limited authority of the City concerning the County proposal; third, a petition and special election could cost the City approximately $500,000.00. Whatever the sum of money that would be spent on such an election, there are many other issues in the City for which the money would actually have a positive direct impact, e.g. affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, including without limitation, lighting for the barrio, new City hall, parks. Please approve the draft comment letter on the County's proposed General Plan and related documents for the County airport located in Carlsbad. Sincerely, The Loftin Firm, P.C. ft«od;,--<k- L. Sue Loftin, Esq. cc: Manager for Carlsbad City Clerk City Attorney Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Council Internet Email Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:15 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk Subject: FW: A letter in support of a safer and more convenient Palomar Airport Morgen, Please distribute to council. Andi From: Roth, Brian [mailto:I Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:05 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: A letter in support of a safer and more convenient Palomar Airport All Receive -Agenda Item # For the Information of th;- CITY COUNCIL ACM_CA_cc Date_cM_. CO()_ I'm writing to you as a resident of Carlsbad that is strongly in support of the Master Plan being considered for Palomar Airport. While I am employed by United Airlines, I am not writing as their representative, and the following comments are mine as a resident, homeowner and father that works to support my family. A little over 4 years ago, I was asked by United to relocate to Southern California. I was given the option to live anywhere between Santa Barbara and San Diego. After much consideration, and consultation with my family, we chose to live in Carlsbad. We love the schools, the lifestyle and the convenience of our community. My wife teaches at Sage Creek High School and my son is a sophomore there. I manage a team of sales professionals that handle corporate and Travel agencies in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. I travel extensively. Last year, a little over 100 flights. Prior to April 6th, 2016, I was able to fly from Palomar to our office near LAX in less than an hour, and that included driving to the airport and parking. I could also fly to Hawaii, London, Chicago and just about anywhere else I need to go with great convenience. I understand the economics of the travel industry and while the decision for SkyWest to upgrade their service to an all-jet fleet was great for most, it did have the unfortunate consequence of leaving a couple of airports without commercial air service. (They didn't ask me my opinion in advance.) I can't predict if or when United via United Express or another major carrier will be able to return to Palomar, but I strongly support the idea. Air service is essential to the growth of our local companies both as a destination for tourism and or commerce. I do know that the proposed runway extension and other safety enhancements described will significantly increase the likelihood of a major carrier offering service to one or more hubs with connections to the world. know that the local corporate accounts that we manage in San Diego were spending over $1,000,000 on United, with a very high percentage of that traffic was connecting in LA for the East Coast or Europe or Asia. On behalf of my customers and colleagues, we'd love to be able to provide that service again. Safe, efficient, reliable air service is essential to the ongoing commercial viability of North County business. am aware of the many concerns and complaints aired at the open house. Unfortunately, there was not an opportunity to explain that the most significant concerns regarding the FM voluntary curfew at Palomar, would not be made worse by commercial service, but just the opposite. Private pilots fly at the whim of whomever charters them and if that means a 3AM arrival or departure, so be it. Commercial service doesn't work that way. We schedule our flights from a spoke market like Carlsbad to connect with our Hubs, so as a regular practice, we don't book flight to depart in the middle of the night. 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please distribute to council. From: Mavis [mailto:1 Council Internet Email Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:55 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk FW: airport expansion up for vote Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:54 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: airport expansion up for vote Hello Council Members, Expansion of CRQ airport will effect out everyday lives, since we live close to the airport. Please allow us the RIGHT TO VOTE on this. Thank you, Mark Davis Carlsbad, Ca 92009 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW VL4 ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION & HAND DELIVERY March 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Matt Hall, Mayor Pro-Tern Keith Blackburn, and Councilpersons Mark Packard, Michael Schumacher, Cori Schumacher City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: SUPPORT FOR ITEM #8 City Council Hearing March 13, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. Please Add to the Record on This Item Dear Honorable Persons: This Firm is located in the City of Carlsbad, I as well as my children and grandchildren and many of our staff live in the City of Carlsbad. My almost 40 year legal career in various aspects of land use has taken me all over the State of California. The City of Carlsbad in my opinion based on experience has been, and hopefully will continue to be, one of the most conscientious and sensitive Cities in basing decisions upon what is best in the long term for the City's residents. I have reviewed the County's proposed Master Plan and DEIR, the comments from the Carlsbad residents and the -City's proposed comments to the County documents. The City comments incorporate the valid concerns of the residents and added additional comments for the long term protection of the City and its residents. In summary, the proposed comment letter is comprehensive and clear. I strongly support the submission of the comment letter to the County. In reviewing the "opposition materials', there is an issue which I entitle "political misdirection". The County's general plan is not an expansion of the airport. The airport remains on the same county owned property as the existing airport. The improvements contemplated under the County's general plan, if implemented, will provide a long term useable airport with enhanced safety. As to the benefits of the proposed County plan, I hereby incorporate as though fully set forth here at the correspondence from Ahmed Haque, President of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. 5760 FLEET STREET, SUITE 110 • CARLSBAD • CALIFORNIA• 92008 T: 760.431.2111 • F: 760.431.2003 • WWW.LOFTINFIRM.COM • SLOFTIN@LOFTINFIRM.COM THE LOFTIN FIRM, P.C. Mayor and City Council of Carlsbad Hearing 3-13-18 Item #8 Page 2 of 2 Based on the mischaracterization of the County's general plan proposal for the airport as an extension of the airport, there appears to be a movement to call for a vote of the residents on the airport issues as mis-defined by those in opposition. First, a petition and vote is not appropriate under the limits of the County proposal; second, the impact of a vote would not change the very limited auth6rity of the City concerning the County proposal; third, a petition and special election could cost the City approximately $500,000.00. Whatever the sum of money that would be spent on such an election, there are many other issues in the City for which the money would actually have a positive direct impact, e.g. affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, including without limitation, lighting for the barrio, new City hall, parks. Please approve the draft comment letter on the County's proposed General Plan and related documents for the County airport located in Carlsbad. Sincerely, The Loftin Firm, P.C. L. Sue Loftin, Esq. cc: Manager for Carlsbad City Clerk City Attorney Jason Haber To: Manager Internet Email Subject: RE: Council Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversation From: Manager Internet Email Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:54 AM To: Jason Haber <Jason.Haber@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: FW: Council Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversation From: Hope Nelson [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 6:30 PM 'tifdtlRe~,..iAf}enda Item ,; ~j For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM// CA ./ ~,~j Date .3.:1:lJCity Manager Y To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Mark Packard <Mark.Packard@carlsbadca.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Council Member Cori Schumacher's Community Conversation To Mayor Hall, City Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, Mr. Jason Haber and City Clerk: It is sad that the City Council refused to 2nd a motion to allow an Ad-Hoc committee to work on the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue. It is too bad that the City never sponsored a true City Workshop regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue. I appreciate having a Special City Council Meeting. I hoped for something more interactive, particularly the opportunity to dialogue with outside council Kaplan, Kirsch and Rockwell. I thought any of our City Officials interested in the McClellan-Palomar Airport issue might be interested in seeing City Councilwoman Cori Schumacher conduct a Community Conversation with approximately 80 attendees, regarding the Airport. I hope this helps you maneuver the City's way through this issue on behalf of its citizens. Also, I request this be made part of the official City Records. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Concerned Carlsbad Resident https:/ /w https:/ /youtu.be/uwacOaFY AuU 1 Jared Oleson Oceanside CA 92056 5 March 2018 RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2018 To whom it may concern, CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I currently attend Rancho Buena Vista as a senior in neighboring Vista, however I live in a neighborhood bordering Carlsbad and under the path of some jets that land at McClellan-Palomar Airport. I want to iterate my approval for the extension of the runway to increase air traffic and possibly bring back contracts from airlines. I remember not long ago the convenience that Skywest / United Express brought to my family and others as we traveled for business and leisure. Now that the airline is gone and it being uneconomical to fly out of San Diego airport, my family and others make the 3+ hour drive to LAX. The extension of the runway may bring short-term delays to local traffic but in the long run will supply the local economy with increased business from increased notoriety as people come to Carlsbad, as well as marketing Carlsbad's unique beaches, shops, and restaurants, and fill local hotels with tourists and businesspeople ready to spend. I understand the concerns of some residents complaining of increased noise pollution, however residing under the flight path of many jets, it has never been an issue. As long as the jets are not flying at unreasonable times such as after 22:00, there is no concern. The jets are not a distraction from life but a reminder of a healthy and flourishing economy. The noise produced by the Jets are hardly noticeable and should be eclipsed by the expounding benefits provided by an extended runway. Sincerely, Jared Oleson Faviola Medina From: Council Internet Email Sent: Cc: Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:02 PM Jason Haber; City Clerk Subject: FW: Palomar Airport Expansion From: Andrew Wright [mailto:a• Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:01 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: 'apwright59@yahoo.com' < Subject: Palomar Airport Expansion Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council, I have lived with my family in south Carlsbad in close vicinity to Palomar Airport for over 20 years. The sleepy little local airport is no longer, as it has grown busier, noisier, and dirtier with air and vehicle traffic. It is something many of us who live near the airport have become increasingly concerned with. Many years ago, I spoke to our late former mayor Bud Lewis several times, and he assured me that the City would address and protect the local residents from any future airport expansion issues if and when the time came. That time is now. We must address the County's & FAA's Palomar expansion plan with a well-thought and cohesive response that protects Carlsbad citizens' quality of life. I understand the perceived economic benefits of expanding the airport for the local industries and businesses. However, I have not seen a credible and comprehensive economic analysis regarding all the impacts that a larger, much busier airport would have on the local area and residents, many of which will be negative. As a finance professional, I know that this type of valid economic analysis is essential to understanding the true impacts of any business decision. The airport as it is today, can be heard 24/7. Some days are worse than others. I am not an environmental scientist, but I know that frequently smelling jet fuel & exhaust, hearing loud jets, helicopters, and prop airplanes constantly fly right over my house is not good for my health and quality of living. What was a minor nuisance is now a constant growing negative. Most of the residents in my ocean-view neighborhood believe our home values will be significantly impacted if the airport is expanded. The real property asset devaluation is irrefutable given current market statistics and will become a reality once the Palomar expansion is formally given a federal and County stamp of approval. Why would Carlsbad even consider such an expansion that jeopardizes the property values of its citizens? Especially since property taxes are such a vital part of income for the City? In hind sight, when County Supervisor Bill Horn worked with the FAA some years back to "grease the skids" on expanding Palomar Airport, our city should have been alerting the citizens of Carlsbad about it and advising us on our rights. I never heard a word of concern or push back from our former City leaders. This issue carries huge implications, and not allowing the citizens of Carlsbad to vote on it is simply wrong. Regardless of the "expansion/extension" semantics, the intent of the 1980 Citizens Initiative was to give citizens a vote on changes to the airport. We the citizens (not local industries and business) elect our city officials to represent the people and be stewards of our best interests. I am quite displeased that our City officials have allowed the FAA and County to even think about expanding Palomar into a significantly busier and larger regional airport without adequate citizen input. am very familiar with how the federal government works, and once they make decisions on issues and projects it is extremely difficult to turn those around. I understand the EIR is under review and up for comments from the residents of Carlsbad and other locales and I am looking forward to seeing what the City's position will be. A few of my concerns regarding the EIR are as follows: 1) The 1 noise contours identified in the EIR are too narrow and limited to a small area surrounding the airport. The EIR does not adequately address the effects of airport noise in other areas of Carlsbad, particularly when aircraft diverge from the VNAP and fly over homes at less than 500 feet; 2) There is no accountability to the pilots/owners of the aircraft for noise violations. This is a non-starter and MUST be addressed. Over the last 20 years, I have reported many violations to Webtrak and have never received any feedback or follow-up from the FAA; 3) The increased traffic generated by the airport expansion and its effect on pollution and gridlock in the area has also not adequately been addressed, given that Carlsbad plans to develop more housing and commercial near the airport. Bottom line: The City needs to step up and protect the citizen's quality of living with a cohesive and well thought out approach on how to, at a minimum: 1) Secure a vote for Carlsbad citizens and 2) Significantly scale down or stop the expansion/extension of Palomar Airport I look forward to the City's response to this significant issue that looms before us. I can be contacted using the below information. Respectfully, Andrew P. Wright Director of Finance Qualcomm Technologies Incorporated ..... ~._,.,,.·~t...-1--:::'\.-...+-" .......... ,,.. _ _....__...._ ,.._ ......... 2 Faviola Medina From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:55 AM Morgen Fry Cc: Jason Haber; City Clerk Subject: FW: airport expansion up for vote Please distribute to council. From: Mavis [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 10:54 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: airport expansion up for vote Hello Council Members, Expansion of CRQ airport will effect out everyday lives, since we live close to the airport. Please allow us the RIGHT TO VOTE on this. Thank you, Mark Davis Carlsbad, Ca 92009 1 Faviola Medina From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Morgen, Please distribute to council. Andi Council Internet Email Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:15 AM Morgen Fry Jason Haber; City Clerk FW: A letter in support of a safer and more convenient Palomar Airport From: Roth, Brian Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:05 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: A letter in support of a safer and more convenient Palomar Airport I'm writing to you as a resident of Carlsbad that is strongly in support of the Master Plan being considered for Palomar Airport. While I am employed by United Airlines, I am not writing as their representative, and the following comments are mine as a resident, homeowner and father that works to support my family. A little over 4 years ago, I was asked by United to relocate to Southern California. I was given the option to live anywhere between Santa Barbara and San Diego. After much consideration, and consultation with my family, we chose to live in Carlsbad. We love the schools, the lifestyle and the convenience of our community. My wife teaches at Sage Creek High School and my son is a sophomore there. I manage a team of sales professionals that handle corporate and Travel agencies in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada and Hawaii. I travel extensively. Last year, a little over 100 flights. Prior to April 6th, 2016, I was able to fly from Palomar to our office near LAX in less than an hour, and that included driving to the airport and parking. I could also fly to Hawaii, London, Chicago and just about anywhere else I need to go with great convenience. I understand the economics of the travel industry and while the decision for SkyWest to upgrade their service to an all-jet fleet was great for most, it did have the unfortunate consequence of leaving a couple of airports without commercial air service. (They didn't ask me my opinion in advance.) I can't predict if or when United via United Express or another major carrier will be able to return to Palomar, but I strongly support the idea. Air service is essential to the growth of our local companies both as a destination for tourism and or commerce. I do know that the proposed runway extension and other safety enhancements described will significantly increase the likelihood of a major carrier offering service to one or more hubs with connections to the world. know that the local corporate accounts that we manage in San Diego were spending over $1,000,000 on United, with a very high percentage of that traffic was connecting in LA for the East Coast or Europe or Asia. On behalf of my customers and colleagues, we'd love to be able to provide that service again. Safe, efficient, reliable air service is essential to the ongoing commercial viability of North County business. am aware of the many concerns and complaints aired at the open house. Unfortunately, there was not an opportunity to explain that the most significant concerns regarding the FAA voluntary curfew at Palomar, would not be made worse by commercial service, but just the opposite. Private pilots fly at the whim of whomever charters them and if that means a 3AM arrival or departure, so be it. Commercial service doesn't work that way. We schedule our flights from a spoke market like Carlsbad to connect with our Hubs, so as a regular practice, we don't book flight to depart in the middle of the night. The terminal at Palomar is a great, but under-utilized asset today. The size of the airport and facilities do not support the myths and unfound fears that led some to believe that, we'll turn this into John Wayne Airport or that we'd have 737's landing here. That is not logistically possible, nor commercially viable. This is a regional, commuter market with a regional commuter airport, that the new Master Agreement supports. If I can be of any assistance, or answer any questions regarding my position in support of the Master Agreement, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, Brian Roth Carlsbad, CA 92009 Brian Roth Regional Sales Director-West United I 5777 West Century Blvd. Suite 17751 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tel 720-480-1335 I united.com 2 Faviola Medina From: Sent: To: Subject: Hope Nelson Wednesday, March 28, 2018 3:52 PM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Cori Schumacher; Michael Schumacher; Manager Internet Email; Celia Brewer; City Clerk; Manager Internet Email; Jason Haber Airport Workshop meeting To all concerned regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport, Please consider the addition of a workshop style meeting focusing on McClellan-Palomar Airport. I realize this has been asked for previously and it continues to be an important for all involved. A Workshop could be a component part of formulating a solution to a huge Carlsbad Community issue. We, as a community, should have a dialogue which represents everyone; Council, knowledgeable staff, Kaplan Kirsch, Rockwell AND the Community. We should all have an opportunity to share ideas in a non-adversarial format. I know this takes extra effort to execute. I appreciate consideration of this and look forward to response. I know the community would be grateful. Thank You, Hope Nelson Carlsbad Resident, 92008 1 Faviola Medina From: Sent: To: Subject: To all: Hope Nelson < Wednesday, March 28, 2018 11:24 AM Matthew Hall; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Cori Schumacher; Michael Schumacher; Manager Internet Email; Celia Brewer; Jason Haber; City Clerk Comment Regarding the McClellan-Palomar Master Plan and PEIR It came to my attention today that my email of 3/19/2018 was not correctly addressed to each Carlsbad City Council Member. To maintain the integrity of the Failure Notice in case it is needed in the future, I have left the document whole. Please scroll past all that to get to the email as intended. My apologies for the operator error and thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Carlsbad Resident, 92008 -----Origi na I Message----- From: MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com [mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:37 PM To: hopen51@att.net Subject: Failure Notice Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <council@carlsbad.ca.gov>: No mx record found for domain=carlsbad.ca.gov ---Below this line is a copy of the message. DKIM-Signature: v=l; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=sl024; t=1521495409; bh=vcijQxSzUS9S0kbbF8QZ8w7Jn2Xq/F917Cm/ttj3coU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From:Subject; b=bjSsTdOKDhKDCUaFmZxinMylcWQPScGWEpX4kcD+aSHervlAADeXplC8PNp3bhNJ63PKUkPRoDT2XyBM/rZjvB/xm9+ GPq2ROr3hyLGNvfKs32Uou/px3tjDjbK7dLVdgn6PRIGV8zMISLIWJauMwSIT3znqUBuox+XYn0unEc= X-YMail-OSG: y_8hupAVMlkkqjua8fHXxlB2ZxqlvGj7 _SdZu7aBCkTwnlnN8P6SGUvQ2TNVTZz q8aJWdcjxO9ahSfyBynUPAVx5mY41kCv_8egXQ0H7m232DISU4pjEhnlQAMV70DkwjHLp_l_pa66 ho E pAM. r5zxaxSJGvsX2s532fWH9QyP FAM_ h B3eZivO LMXfm r3X Ki0TLQXq0tV JwC7 qfTZn IGSWw 211 N N 6yrw _krUSCmqX4zTs2 .xafbz2xJJO PQf46yOyTZXzNG M IV cDscE302o _ F4zF3cbC8SZOfnC VeGJASdM.kPYL2KS2EdWkRbWctS66NBTKhAfibwzYs13fkUaCXghET04GOixP4yswSGUcbK717.U 6oPjWWzQVqUx810fahlsxj9vlseTmQ2OYM0KS0UWbNQ8P9eeCBdmtL0noEF4K3uzdDHkQ9VjvFsL z5FuvglCCTCW32DYY8TtGHXZmKSvdqGZhwakxi .. o8Qy_SWOL6CbVV8ll_MPNsyjBu8zUtfvD2a EQoxAN2uDxRyLhexk Received: from sonic.gate.mail.nel.yahoo.com by sonic313.consmr.mail.gql.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:36:49 +0000 Received: from 108-83-1-232.lightspeed.sndgca.sbcglobal.net (EHLO OwnerHP) ([108.83.1.232]) by smtp405.mail.gql.yahoo.com (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 8aeec8dadd472e3baf3f9d9ccb94ab5e; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:36:47 +0000 (UTC) From: "Hope Nelson" To: <PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov> Cc: <council@carlsbad.ca.gov>, "'Celia Brewer"' <celia.brewer@carlsbadca.gov>, "'Kevin Crawford"' <kevin.crawford@carlsbadca.gov>, "'City Clerk"' <clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Public Comment for McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Dated Jan 2018 -EIR Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:36:46 -0700 Message-ID: <006801d3bfca$626b1400$27413c00$@att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----= _NextPart_000_0069_01D3BF8F.B61081CO" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AdO/xxwy94jXN2egRU+DhtxhO4n35w== Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------= _NextPart_000_0069_01D3BF8F.B61081C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=" us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To all concerned: Regarding migratory birds mitigation, page 21, S-11, Impact #Bl-6 of the Draft PEIR, McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan "If grubbing, clearing, or grading must occur during the general avian breeding season (Feb 15-Sept 15), a pre- construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the commencement of the activities to determine if active bird nest are present in the affected areas. If there are no nesting birds (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting behavior) within this area, clearing, grubbing, and grading shall be allowed to proceed. Furthermore, if construction activities are to resume in an area where they have not occurred for a period of seven or more days during the breeding season, an updated survey for avian nesting will be conducted. If active nest or nesting birds are observed within the area, the biologist shall flag the active nests and construction activities shall void active nests until nesting behavior has ceased, nest have failed, or young have fledged." Please respond to the following questions: 1. What is the impact of construction noise to flagged active nests? 2. What provision is made to ensure birds return following construction? 3. What is the impact of the expanded airport facility on birds that return to nest? Will they have nesting areas to return to? How will increased noise impact nesting? Regarding the phased in timing of projects, pages 1-6 through 1-9 the Draft PEIR, McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan The PEIR discusses phased timeframes for project development of0-7 years, 8-12 years, 13-20 years, however there is no discussion of alternative development timelines. It appears that this project could easily be developed on a much faster timeline. There is nothing in the PEIR committing the County to a specific timeline. That being the case, please enlighten us regarding how request for funding and funding approval or any other situation could accelerate the programs. Include in your discussion how this would significantly increase the impact throughout the PEIR. Also include how it would change projected activity at Palomar-McClellan Airport and at the very least, what a cost benefit analysis template would be. 2 Regarding the lack of completeness of the PEIR Throughout the County Presentations held on January 30 and February 13, 2018, the public was told that each incremental project, as implemented, would be required to complete CEQA review and that all development would be held to CEQA review standards. CEQA should not be an excuse for an incomplete PEIR. Should any portion of the proposed McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan have issues passing CEQA, it would impact the entire plan. Duly, I request the following regarding the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan and PEIR be addressed: 1. All comments in response 2. All inconsistencies 3. Any lack of information This should be done via distribution of a revised PEIR with a substantial public review period equal to or greater than the allowed 8 weeks given for this proposed McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan. Thank You, Hope and Vince Nelson Carlsbad Residents 92008 ; 3 Faviola Medina From: City Clerk Sent: To: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:35 PM Faviola Medina; Sheila Cobian Subject: FW: Comment PEIR for CRQ Master Plan / Gnatcatcher habitat and nests Does this need to be included in the Airport info? It may already be there. Just double checking. Can the other emails in the Clerk lnbox regarding the airport be deleted? Thank you, Tammy"' From: Amanda Mascia Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:07 PM To: Celia Brewer <Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Comment PEIR for CRQ Master Plan/ Gnatcatcher habitat and nests ---------- Forwarded message--------- From: Amanda Mascia Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM Subject: Comment PEIR for CRQ Master Plan/ Gnatcatcher habitat and nests To: <PalomarMP@sdcounty.ca.gov> Comments for Submittal: I do not believe the mitigation measures to adequately address the significant impacts to gnatcatcher habitats/nests and disagree that plan provides for "less than significant impacts." PEIR: "The 2011 Hard line letter confirmed this mitigation strategy is adequate assuming adoption of the North County Multiple Species Conservation Program (NC MSCP)" According to the San Diego County website, the NC MSCP is still in development (Source: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/mscp/) Mitigation measures for an "assumed adoption" of a plan {NC MSCP} still in development cannot and should not be applied. This is further addressed here in the PEIR: "If the NC MSCP is not adopted at the time of project-specific implementation, take authorization for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would require approval of either an Habitat Loss Permit (HLP) from the County or Section 7 (or 10) permit from USFWS." Mitigation measures for a potential take authorization have not been approved. 1 Seeing that BOTH avenues for mitigation, adoption of the NC MSCP and the take authorization via HLP Permit or permit from USFWS have NOT been approved, the mitigation measures should NOT be validated. The significant impacts should stand without reference to mitigation, as there is currently not proven mitigation for the significant impacts to gnatcatcher habitats and nests. Submitted 3/19/18 Amanda Mascia Oceanside, CA 92056 Reference: Table S-2. Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures Section 2.2 "Biology" Page S-8 McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan Draft PEIR January 2018 BI-1. The Proposed Project would impact coastal California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat resulting in the potential to impact California gnatcatcher nests. This would be considered a significant direct and indirect impact. M-BI-1a. In accordance with the mitigation strategy described in a joint letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (2011 Hardline letter), mitigation for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica ca/ifornica) habitat (Diegan coastal sage scrub) shall occur at a 2:1 ratio through the preservation of southern maritime chaparral on County-owned lands on or contiguous with the eastern parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 209-050-25), or at another location deemed acceptable by the County and Wildlife Agencies. This would result in the preservation of 6.2 acres of southern maritime chaparral. The 2011 Hardline letter confirmed this mitigation strategy is adequate assuming adoption of the North County Multiple Species Conservation Program (NC MSCP). If the NC MSCP is not adopted at the time of project-specific implementation, take authorization for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would require approval of either an Habitat Loss Permit (HLP) from the County or Section 7 (or 10) permit from USFWS. Amanda Mascia 2 City Comment Letter on McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan Update and Draft Program EIR March 13, 2018 Sarah M. Rockwell 2 Our firm was asked to: −Work with City staff to prepare: −Comments on Master Plan Update −Comments on Draft Program EIR −Focus: −Legal Issues −Technical issues −Issues of particular concern to Carlsbad and its residents 3 CEQA Requirements −Draft Program EIR −Comments due March 19, 2018 −County must prepare responses to comments −Recirculation if “significant new information” −Final EIR = Draft EIR + responses to comments −EIR Certification −County decision on Master Plan −Findings −Mitigation monitoring program 4 Key Master Plan Comments -Definition of Airport Property and Airport Boundaries -Airport Design Issues -Change in Airport Reference Code to D-III -Modification of Standards -Safety v. Business Justification of Runway Extension -Forecasts 5 Key Master Plan Comments (cont.) −Treatment of Runway Protection Zones −Requirements −Land Acquisition −Size and location −NEPA Documentation for FAA Approvals 6 County Draft EIR Conclusions Areas of significant effects: •Aesthetics •Biology •Hazardous Materials •Construction Noise •Transportation/Traffic No significant effects: •Air Quality •Aircraft Noise •Cultural Resources •Geology •GHG •Hydrology •Land Use/Planning 7 Draft EIR: General Comments −Unclear project description −Clarify alternatives −Issues with methodology −Understates impacts by omitting general aviation activities −Incomplete cumulative impacts analysis −Incomplete mitigation 8 Key Draft EIR Comments: Aesthetics −Better discuss retaining walls −Add landscaping mitigation measures −Allow City to approve landscaping and screening 9 Key Draft EIR Comments: Biological Resources −Analyze MALSR relocation and impacts on preserve areas −Analyze cumulative impacts on Diegan coastal sage scrub −Analyze Coastal Zone Management Act consistency review requirements 10 Key Draft EIR Comments: Noise −Evaluate single event noise impacts −Evaluate 24 hour noise measurements north of airport −Evaluate noise impacts in light of NextGen −Evaluate noise impacts for both commercial and noncommercial operations. 11 Key Draft EIR Comments: Noise (cont.) −Explain discrepancy between ALUCP and Master Plan forecasts −Compare present to future conditions −Reevaluate impacts to nearby noise sensitive land uses −Mitigation −Construction Noise −VNAP procedures 12 Key Draft EIR Comments: Transportation −Include trips from noncommercial activities −Include additional projects in cumulative impacts analysis −Add and/or refine proposed mitigation −Site/employer based TDM plan −Palomar Airport Road/El Camino −Palomar Airport Road/Camino Vida Roble 13 Key Draft Comments: Air Quality −Include impacts from general aviation activities −Consider reliability of future baseline numbers 14 Key Draft EIR Comments: Greenhouse Gas Emissions −Correct incorrect and outdated methodologies and thresholds −Correct improper piecemealing of construction and operational impacts −Correct insufficient analysis of conflicts with plans −Add mitigation −Add energy impact analysis 15 Key Draft EIR Comments: Land Use −Omit legal conclusions regarding CUP 172 without analysis −Analyze consistency with Carlsbad Growth Management Plan −Analyze how revised ALP would affect current ALUCP −Clarify inconsistencies in statements regarding local land use authority 16 Next Steps: −Finalize letter −Letter due Monday, March 19 −County must evaluate and prepare responses to all comments before certifying Final EIR