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