2024-11-19; City Council; 09; Public Hearing and Adoption of Code Requirements and Permit Review Procedures for New or Expanded Airport Land Uses – GPA2024-0001, ZCA2024-003, LCPA2024-0021, and OAJ202

CA Review AF
Meeting Date: Nov. 19, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Mike Strong, Assistant Director Community Development [email protected], 442-339-2721
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Code Requirements and Permit Review Procedures for New or Expanded Airport Land Uses – GPA2024-0001, ZCA2024-003, LCPA2024-0021, and OAJ2024-0001 (PUB2024- 0008) Districts: All
Recommended Action

1. Hold a public hearing; and

2. Adopt a resolution adopting Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit 1);

3. Adopt a resolution a
dopting amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Eleme
nt to specify and clarify code requireme nts and permit review procedures for new and expanded airport land uses (Exhibit 2);

4. Introduce an ordi
nance adopting a Zone Code amendment and a Local Coastal Program amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to specify
and clarify code requirements and permit review proce dures for new and expanded airport land uses (Exhibit 3); and

5. Adopt a resolution a
dopting procedures to implement California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 (Exhibit 4).

Execu
tive Summary
The City Council adopted a resolution on April 23, 2024, directing staff to process code amendments to address new or expanded airport land uses. This staff report responds to the City Council’s direction. The proposed action includes code amendments to specify and clarify the city’s requirements and permit review procedures in the event of a proposal to expand the McClellan-Palomar Airport.

This item requires City Council review and approval because the request involves amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program. The request also includes new procedures concerning the city’s role, review and approval of an airport expansion or enlargement plan, or in the event the county, which operates the airport, acquires property beyond the current boundaries of Palomar Airport.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 1 of 192

The proposed code amendments are provided in Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 5 includes draft ordinance and policy language (strikeout/underline version) for all proposed amendments.

The proposed procedures to implement Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 are provided in Exhibit 4.

Explanation & Analysis
Background
• The McClellan-Palomar Airport was annexed to the city in 1978. As part of the annexation proceedings, the County of San Diego agreed to obtain a conditional use permit from the city for the airport.
• In September 1980, the city approved the permit for the airport (CUP-172). This permit requires an amendment for any uses not listed in it and/or for expansion of the airport facility.
• In 2015, the county began work on updating its airport master plan. The county approved the update in October 2018, changing the airport’s design standard from B-II Airport Reference Code to D-III and including an option for a runway extension up to 800 feet. (An airport reference code is a classification used by the Federal Aviation Administration to categorize an airport based on its size and the types of aircraft it can accommodate. A B-II code designates a medium-sized airport suitable for smaller to mid-sized business aircraft, typically with a moderate runway length and operational requirements compared to larger airports. A D-III code designates an airport that can accommodate larger business jets.)
• Both the city and the community group Citizens for a Friendly Airport filed lawsuits challenging the county’s actions.
• Also in October 2018, shortly after the county approved the update, the city initiated a work program to amend its Zoning Ordinance to permit airport and airport-supporting land uses only with a conditional use permit and only within the airport property boundaries.
• In 2019, the city settled its lawsuit with the county over the Airport Master Plan update.

The settlement included a provision requiring the city to abandon its work on the ordinance.
• In early 2021, Citizens for a Friendly Airport partially prevailed in its lawsuit over the Airport Master Plan update, which led to the county setting aside its approval of the update. Importantly, the court determined the county had voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its legal immunities from the city’s land use regulatory authority with respect to the airport by agreeing to obtain a conditional use permit for the airport during the annexation proceedings.
• Consequently, the court determined the county is required to obtain an amendment to its conditional use permit for the airport before changing the airport’s design standard to D-III ARC.
• The outcome of the Citizens for a Friendly Airport lawsuit eliminated the need for the settlement agreement between the city and the county. In September 2021, the city and county agreed to terminate the settlement agreement, which removed any city impediment to proceeding with code amendments to permit airport and airport supporting land uses only with a conditional use permit and only within the airport property boundaries.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 2 of 192

• In December 2021, after completing an additional court-ordered noise analysis, the county again approved the Airport Master Plan update. Citizens for a Friendly Airport did not challenge the county ’s decision, and the county has not filed an application with the city to amend its conditional use permit. This update evaluated a runway extension of 200 feet in the near term; and an additional 600 feet in the long term to support larger aircraft, for a total of 800 feet. Under this alternative, the centerline of one runway, Runway 06-24, would shift 104 feet to the north. Final decisions on these projects have not been made.
• I n January 2024, the city received a letter from Citizens for a Friendly Airport’s counsel requesting the code amendment process be reinitiated, with suggested additions. The letter further requested a related amendment to the city’s General Plan. • The City Council directed staff on April 23, 2024, to proceed with preparing the amendments for City Council consideration and approval. This staff report responds to the April 2024 City Council direction.

Please refer to the Oct. 16, 2024, Planning Commission staff report for more background information about the airport.

Amendments
Whereas, in the past, there may have been a question regarding whether a particular airport- related land use was permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited, the proposed code amendments and procedures specify and clarify the city’s requirements and permit-review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses for the areas outside an existing airport boundary. The proposed amendments and procedures, including new definitions, are proposed in keeping with the authority granted by state law (California Government Code Section 65800) and shall not be interpreted or enforced in any manner that violates that authority.

Proposed ame
ndments to the General Plan
• Specify as a policy statement city opposition to any changes to the Palomar Airport that would increase the impact that the Palomar Airport has on neighboring communities and on city resources beyond the B-II Enhanced Alternative airport reference code.
1 • Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.” • Require new or expanded airport land uses to obtain a new or amended conditional use permit.
• Permit airport development only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport.

1 As part of the Airport Master Plan update, the County adopted the B-II Enhanced Alternative, which would maintain the safety and design standards for Palomar Airport’s current B-II classification, but also extend the runway by 200 feet.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 3 of 192

Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
• Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.” • Permit airport land uses only by issuance of a new or amended Conditional Use Permit • Amend the zoning tables to remove airport as a permissible land use, so that only the property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport, as depicted in the city Zoning Map, would remain as conditionally permissible for airport land uses.

Proposed a mendments to the Local Coastal Program
• Implementation Plan – the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments (above) for those areas within or impacting areas of the Coastal Zone.

The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance constitute portions of the city’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, so they require a concurrent Local Coastal Program amendment. Once it is adopted by the City Council, this plan must be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval in accordance with the Coastal Act. (California Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq)2 Procedures
Under state law (California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6) the acquisition of property for the expansion of the airport may not begin until:
(1) the County of San Diego submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the city; and
(2) The city holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan Because the 2021 Airport Master Plan may require the county to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of Palomar Airport, and those properties are located within the limits of the city, staff are recommending the city adopt procedures to guide the process in the review of plans and other actions of the county. The procedures are designed to provide an expeditious review of county applications for approval of plans to acquire property as required by Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6, while ensuring that all interested parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on such applications.

Analysis
The proposed code amendments merely restate rather than change existing law and specify and clarify the procedures that the city must follow before authorizing new or expanded airport land uses and/or activities, and therefore make no change in the areas of airport influence or the safety zone boundaries that depict the relative risk of aircraft accidents occurring near the airport.

The only change is that the proposed code amendments authorize airport-related uses only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport and that the decision-making body to consider new or expanded airport land uses shall be the City Council.

2 Et seq, or et sequentes, means all of the codes in the section, not just the single one cited.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 4 of 192

The proposed code amendments and procedures comply with relevant provisions of federal law, state law, the Carlsbad Municipal Code and other planning documents, as explained in more detail in the Oct. 16, 2024, Planning Commission staff report.

The proposed amendments and procedures have no effect on the continued operation of P
alomar Airport as a general aviation airport. Instead, they specify and clarify the city’s requirements and permit review procedures in the event of a proposal to expand Palomar Airport. This will help provide for the orderly development of Palomar Airport while simultaneously protecting the public health, safety, and welfare in the area surrounding the airport. To be clear, while the county has prepared an airport master plan and has received conditional FAA approval of an airport layout plan depicting future potential airport expansion, the county has not submitted a proposal nor received any final approvals to expand Palomar Airport.

Planning Commission recommendation

On October 16, 2024, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the environmental document and adopt the proposed amendments and procedures.

Seven speakers commented, with six speakers expressing support and one representative from the county contending that runway extensions are covered by the county’s existing conditional use permit or otherwise preempted from local control. The minutes of that meeting are provided as Exhibit 6.

Community Engagement
The city issued several notices and advertised several public comment periods as part of the development of this staff report and staff recommendation, which are summarized in the Oct. 16, 2024, Planning Commission staff report. This includes, but is not limited to, agency notifications as required under California Government Code Section 65352, tribal consultation as required by Senate Bill 18 - Traditional tribal cultural places and notice of availability in accordance with the regulations of the California Coastal Commission (California Code of Regulations Sections 13515 and 13552). The public review period of the draft amendments began on May 21, 2024 and ended on July 8, 2024.

The city received public comment letters during the public review period and during the course of developing the draft ordinance and resolutions. Comments received from the start of the process (April 23, 2024), through noon, Oct. 9, 2024, were provided in the Oct. 16, 2024, Planning Commission staff report. Correspondence received since then through noon Nov. 13 are provided in Exhibit 6.

While most public comments support the amendments or provide additional background information related to airport uses or airport expansion planning, the County of San Diego submitted two letters to the city (on April 23, 2024, and July 8, 2024) raising concerns about the proposed code amendments and how it may relate to future airport development.

Fiscal Analysis
The existing fiscal year 2024-25 budget includes sufficient funding for the cost of developing and implementing the proposed code amendments and procedures. The City Attorney used outside legal counsel to help review the code amendments. Appropriate funds were previously Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 5 of 192

appropriated and allocated for unfunded litigation, and City Attorney services is included in the city’s operating budget.

Next Steps
A decision of the City Council to amend the General Plan is effective immediately after the City Council’s adoption of the resolution. An amended Zoning Ordinance is typically adopted after the second reading. Once adopted, the City Clerk’s Office will publish a summary of the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days. The ordinance would be effective 30 days after its adoption.

Within the Coastal Zone, the City Council's approval of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program would not become effective until the amendment is approved by the California Coastal Commission. Since the Palomar Airport boundary is outside of the Coastal Zone, the city would be able to apply and enforce any new policies, laws, rules, and regulations or other police-power measures as soon as the resolutions and ordinance are procedurally effective in the manner provided by state law, with the ordinance having been approved in a second reading.

Environmental Evaluation
In accordance with the City’s procedures and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15080–15097, a supplemental environmental impact report State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339, City Planning Case No. 2022-0007), was certified as complete on Jan. 30, 2024, by the City Council for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update.

Under CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary action in furtherance of a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances or new information to determine whether any of the circumstances under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review.

City staff evaluated the proposed code amendments, and all aspects of the changes, in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. City staff concluded that the supplemental environmental impact report fully analyzed and mitigated, where feasible, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from revising the “original” project, the Housing Element update, and therefore, no subsequent environmental impact report or subsequent mitigated negative declaration is required.

On that basis, city staff has prepared an addendum for the changes, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. (The addendum is provided as an attachment to Exhibit 1). The proposed code amendments would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those addressed in the final environmental impact report and would not meet any other standards requiring further environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and §15163.

No further analysis or environmental documentation is required.

Exhibits

1. City Council resolution - Addendum to supplemental environmental impact report

2. City Council resolution - General Plan amendment
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 6 of 192

3. City Council ordinance - Zoning change amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment

4. City Council resolution - Procedures

5. Proposed code amendments

6. Planning Commission Oct. 16, 2024, meeting minutes

7. Public comments
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 7 of 192
Exhibit 1
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 8 of 192
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-257

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE HOUSING

ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CASE NAME: CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED

AIRPORT LAND USES
CASE NO.: EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding: (1) amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element ("General Plan"), Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code ("Zoning Ordinance"), and Local Coastal Program for new and expanded airport airports; and (2) procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport ("Procedures") hereinafter collectively referred to as "Project;" and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004 (City Planning Case No. EIR 13-02), was prepared and the City Council certified it as complete by City Council Resolution No. 2015-242 on Sept. 22, 2015, for the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the first addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update and adopted on November 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, the second addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Housing Element Update 2021-2029, and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6,2021;and
WHEREAS, the third addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Jefferson Mixed Use: Townhome and Professional Office Project, and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-256 on Nov. 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, in connection with an update to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, the General Plan Safety Element, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and the Local Coastal Program for implementing a Housing Element rezone program, the City prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR"), State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (City Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007) to supplement EIR 13-02. On Jan. 30, 2024, the Ci
ty Council certified the SEIR and adopted a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Project is su bject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq., and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the ci ty is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the Project; and WHEREAS, an Addendum / Initial Study (“IS”) Ch ecklist was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15063 and §15162 to evaluate the Project and to determine whether the environmental effects of the later activity is within the scope of the previously prepared EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furthera
nce of a project for which an EIR has been certified, the Lead Agency is required to review any changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed modifications to the P
roject in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162; and
WHEREAS, based on this evaluation, staff concluded that the Final SEIR had fully analyzed and mi
tigated, where feasible, in compliance with CEQA, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the Project modifications, that the impacts to the environment as a result of the modifications are consistent with and would not create substantial new or increased impacts beyond those that were evaluated in the Final SEIR, and that, therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is now required; and WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed modifications, and to document staff’s evaluation of th
e environmental impact of said modifications, staff prepared Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164; and
WHEREAS, on Oct . 16, 202 4, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Project; and Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 9 of 192
WHE
REAS the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution s No. 7524, 7525, and 7526 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the City Council on Nov. 19, 2024 to consider adoption of the Project. The public notice consisted of (1) that the project is within the scope of the program approved earlier; and (2) the certified S EIR adequately describes the proposed Project for the purposes of CEQA. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the City Council, including, without limitation:

1. Written information including all application materials and other written and graphical information,

2. Oral testimony from city staff, interested parties, and the public,

3. The Oct. 16, 2024 Planning Commission staff report,

4. The Nov. 19, 2024 City Council staff report, which along with its attachments, is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein,

5. Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, examining Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR (Attachment A), on file in the Planning Division and incorporated by this reference, and analyzing the information submitted by city staff and considering any written and oral comments received, said City Council considered all factors relating to EIR 13-02, EIR 2022-0007, and related addenda; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the City Council bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) EIR 13 -02, EIR 2022 -0007, and related addenda, and any appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and the Project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and the P roject itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 10 of 192
submitted to the city during the comment period relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the Project itself; (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the city staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly drafted this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the understanding that this information is complete, true, and accurate.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows:

1. Record and Basis for Action. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be complete, true, accurate , and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Compliance with CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines § 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered EIR 13-02, EIR 2022-0007, and related addenda and finds that those documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all of the environmental impacts associated with the revised Project.

The City Council further finds that the SEIR, Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR , and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, and that the findings related to the SEIR and Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR , taken together, reflect the City Council ’s independent judgment. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, which is attached hereto as Attachment A, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 or 15163 calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically:

A. The proposed modifications to the project do not create substantial changes that would require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 11 of 192
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
B. The proposed modifications to the project do not create substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous S EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SEIR was certified as complete and adopted, that shows any of the following:
i. The modifications will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified SEIR;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the certified SEIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the Applicant declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the certified S EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Applicant declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alterative; and
v. The evaluation of the proposed modifications to the project, certified SEIR, and Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR reflect the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis based on review of the entirety of the administrative record, which record provides the information upon which this resolution is based.

D. Pursuant to the above findings, the City Council determines that the SEIR, together with the Addendum, satisfy all the requirements of CEQA and is adequate to serve Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 12 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 13 of 192
as the required environmental documentation for the Project and, therefore adopts Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR for the Project (Attachmen t A).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 19th day of November , 2024, by the following vote , to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BLACKBURN, BHAT-PATEL, ACOSTA, BURKHOLDER, LUNA.

NONE.

KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Attachment A
City of Carlsbad
Addendum No . 2 to the Housing Element
Implementation and Public Safety Element
Update Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the Code Amendments for New and
Expanded Airports and Procedures to Implement
Public Utilities Code §21661.6

City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 14 of 192
(i)
.
.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 15 of 192
Table of Contents
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR i Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction and Project Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 Project Title .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................................................... 1 Contact Person and Phone Number ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................................................. 1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2 Project Context ........................................................................................................................................ 6 3 Overview of the CEQA Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 8 4 Environmental Effects and Determinations ........................................................................................... 10 5 Addendum Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 11 6 Addendum Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 16 7 References ............................................................................................................................................. 88

Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity ............................................................................... 2

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 16 of 192
City of Carlsbad
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

This page intentionally left blank.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 17 of 192
Executive Summary
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR iii Executive Summary
The proposed Project consists of two parts. The Project includes proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify the City of Carlsbad’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport. The proposed Project also consists of new procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. When used in relation to the Addendum, the terms “Project” and “proposed Project” are interchangeable and refer to both parts.

The proposed P roject is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq., and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). Pursuant to CEQA, the city is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the Project.

CEQA Guidelines §15160 explains that there are several mechanisms, and variations in environmental documents, that can be tailored to different situations and intended uses of environmental review.

Specifically, GEQ Guidelines §15160 states that the “ … variations listed [including Subsequen t EIRs, Supplemental EIRs, and addendums] are not exclusive. Lead A gencies may use other variations consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances.” This provision allows Lead Agencies to tailor the use of CEQA me chanisms (such as an addendum) to fit the circumstances presented to the Lead Agency by a project.

In considering t
he potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, the city has determined that the EIR certified for the 2015 General Plan Update (General Plan & Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004, dated June 2015), SEIR certified for the 2023 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse N o. 2022090339, dated July 2023), and related addenda, are of continuing informational value. Further, inasmuch as the proposed Project would reflect a change to the original “project” that was analyzed in the Previous CEQA Documents, the analysis shows that these changes would not result in a change to the approved EIR/SEIR. All of the impact issues previously examined in the approved EIR/SEIR would remain unchanged with the proposed modifications. The changes proposed are relatively minor and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects which would call for, as provided in §15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the preparation of a Subsequent EIR.

Therefore, t his document’s analysis supports that a n a ddendum to the approved EIR/SEIR i s the appropriate form of documentation to meet the statutory requirements of CEQA.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 18 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 19 of 192
Introduction and Project Summary

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 1 1 Introduction and Project Summary
Project Title
Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( “SEIR”) for : (1) amend ing the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161.

The code amendments and procedures, together, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Project” or “proposed Project.”
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Contact Person and Phone Number
Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development, 442-339-2721.

Project Location
The City of Carlsbad encompasses approximately 39 square miles of land in northwest San Diego County and is surrounded by Oceanside to the north, Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County to the east, Encinitas to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Along Carlsbad’s northern edge, urban development abuts Highway 78, with the roadway and Buena Vista Lagoon acting as a boundary between Carlsbad and Oceanside. Similarly, Batiquitos Lagoon, along the city’s southern edge, acts as a boundary between Carlsbad and Encinitas. To the east, boundaries are less distinct, as a mix of hillsides and urban development are adjacent to Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated County lands. Since the proposed Project involves specifying and clarifying the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airports, the Project’s planning boundary is the Carlsbad city limits, which is depicted on Figure 1. T he McClellan-Palomar Airport is the only airport in the city’s limits. The airport is owned and operated by the County of San Diego and located north of Palomar Airport Road between College Avenue and El Camino Real.

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 20 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

2 Figure 1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 21 of 192

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
_--, City of Carlsbad r.:_. ·t
[ =·-= ] City Lim1 s
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 3 Background
California has a diverse variety of airport types, ranging from large hub commercial airports to small, privately owned airstrips. Additionally, California supports many facilities in a wide range of categories.

Although commercial service airports handle most of the public’s air travel needs, the most common type of airport in California is the G eneral Aviation Airport. General A viation Airports offer a wide variety of services, ranging from flight instruction , recreation, air cargo, emergency medical transportation, law enforcement, and firefighting operations.

There are a lot of considerations that go into the storage, maintenance, and operation of aircraft – from aviation demand forecasts, airfield requirements, gate and terminal space requirements, airline support facilities, and surface transportation requirements. This includes but is not limited to runway and taxiway design, passenger terminals, hangars, aprons, parking facilities, etc. To identify future construction and capital infrastructure needs, airport proprietors will often prepare airport master plans to identify existing airside (runway and taxiway system, etc.) and landside (terminal and hangars, etc.) facilities, evaluate what facilities are needed in the future to what is currently available, and recommend future construction and capital projects. An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of the airport and typically describes short -, medium-, and long-term plans for airport development.

Performing regular airport master plan updates on a regular basis help s the airport proprietor meet the changes emerging in the a viation industry and the future development requirements these changes may create.

Th
e analysis of various airside and landside functional areas are typically performed with the guidance of several Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) publications, including non -regulatory Advisory Circulars (“AC”) 150/5060 -5,
Airport Capacity and Delay, 150/5300 -13
, Airport Design, and Order
5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( “NPIAS”). These guidelines should be regarded as general planning tools with development tied to aviation activity levels.

Pa
lomar Airport Background
The Palomar Airport was opened in 1959 by the County after being relocated from Del Mar due to the construction of Interstate 5 (“I -5”). When it was constructed, the area was mainly dominated by agricultural uses, and as surrounding areas developed the Palomar Airport property became part of a larger unincorporated island completely surrounded by the city . Palomar Airport was annexed to the City of Carlsbad (“City”) by the San Diego Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) on Sept. 11, 1978. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 5637 and ordered the airport annexed on Dec. 19, 1978.

Federal policies categorize airports by type of activities, including “C ommercial Service Airports,” “Cargo Service Airports,” “R eliever Airports,” and “General A viation Airports.” A General Aviation Airport is a public-use airport that does not have scheduled services or has scheduled service with less than 2,500 passenger boardings (enplanements) each year (49 U.S.C. §47102(8)). At the time of the Palomar Airport’s annexation into the city, the airport was classified as a “General Aviation Airport” by the FAA. And when the Planning Commission approved CUP-172 (Resolution No. 1699) it was subject Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 22 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

4 to the condition that "[t]he existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this [Conditional Use Permit] is approved by the Planning Commission .” The city ’s land uses and zoning districts have been predicated upon the continued operation of the airport as a General Aviation Airport as it was designated since the time of annexation.

Pr
oject Initiation
On Dec. 17, 2019, a minute motion was made by the City Council that directed the City Manager and the City Attorney to coordinate and bring back to the City Council specific procedures outlining a process the city would apply and follow prior to the approval of the acquisition of property for any airport purpose and where a vote of the people of Carlsbad would fit into that process.

On April 23, 2024, the city Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 2024 -086,) to authorize the processing of code amendment applications to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses.

Project Description
The Project includes two components: (1) amend ing the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

Amendments t o the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program Pursuant to the authority of Government Code §§65100 et seq., 65350 et seq., and 65850 et seq.; Coastal Act §§30510 through 30514; and §§13551 through 13555 of the Commission’s regulations, contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, said verified application in its entirety constitute amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element (“General Plan”), Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), and Local Coastal Program ( the main land use document for coastal area development and natural resource protection).

Amendments to the General Plan propose the following:
1) S
pecify as a policy statement city opposition to any changes to the Palomar Airport that would increase the impacts of the airport on neighboring communities. 2) Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.” 3) Require new or expanded “airport” land uses to obtain a new or amended Conditional Use Permit.
4) Permit “airport” development only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport.

Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance amendments propose the following:
5) Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.” 6) Permit “airport” land uses only by issuance of a new or amended Conditional Use Permit. 7) Amend the zoning tables to remove “airport” as permissible land uses, such that only the property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport as depicted in the city zoning map would remain as permissible for “airport” land uses.

Procedures
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 23 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 5 Under California law (Public Utilities Code § 21661.6) the acquisition of the property may not begin until: (1) the County submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the city; and (2) the city holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan. Because implementation of the 2021 PAMPU could result in a proposal to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of the Palomar Airport (and those properties are located within the limits of the city ), the city has determined that it is necessary to adopt procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating the city’s role, review, and approval an airport expansion or enlargement plan or where there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, including necessary findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

Discretionary Actions
The Project would require the following discretionary actions by the City Council:
• Approval of Addendum No. 2 to the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; • Adoption of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and
• Adoption of procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The location and custodian of the EIR certified for the 2015 General Plan U pdate (General Plan & Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004, dated June 2015), SEIR certified for the 2023 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339, dated July 2023), and related addenda are with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 24 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

6 2 Project Context
The following provides a timeline of related environmental documentation that has been previously prepared to support the environmental clearances for the Project.

On September 22, 2015, the City of Carlsbad certified a F inal EIR for a comprehensive update to the General Plan and a Climate Action Plan (General Plan & Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2011011004, City Planning Case No. EIR 13-02) (City of Carlsbad 2015). The certified EIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with future development allowed under the General Plan Update and included a thorough analysis of the estimated build out of the city through the horizon year 2035. The EIR found that, with implementation of the policies and programs contained in the General Plan and recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with future development under the General Pl an update wo uld be less than significant, except impacts on Air Quality and Transportation which would be significant and unavoidable.

On July 14, 2020, the City Council approved CAP Amendment No. 1 to revise the GHG inventory and r
eduction targets and forecast, update reductions from existing measures and incorporate community choice energy as a new reduction measure. Addendum No. 1 to the 2015 General Plan Update and CAP EIR was prepared in May 2020 for EIR 13-02 to support updates to the certified CAP (“CAP Amendment No. 1”) (City of Carlsbad 2020). The Addendum concluded that CAP Amendment No. 1 did not constitute a substantial change in the project or circumstances involving significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The mitigation measures previously included and remaining in the CAP, and the CCE implementation measure remained feasible. Therefore, CAP Amendment No. 1 did not necessitate a subsequent EIR because it did not create any of the situations contained in State CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Addendum No. 2 to th e Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Housing Element Update 2021-2029 and was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6, 2021 (City of Carlsbad 2021). The Addendum. The Addendum found that, with implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with the Housing Element did not identify any changes in the Project (2015 General Plan), changes in circumstance, and/or any new information of substantial importance that would cause significant effects to environmental resources. Addendum No. 2 determined that the 2015 General Plan EIR was of continuing informational value, the changes in the 2021 Housing Element Update were within the scope of that previously certified EIR, and none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15162 existed.

Addendum No. 3 to the Final EIR 13 -02 was prepared for the Jefferson Mixed Use: Townhome and Professional Office Project was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-256 on Nov. 8, 2022 (City of Carlsbad 2022). The project consisted of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to support four residential air-space condominium units and a detached, approximately 897-square-foot office building. The Addendum concluded that the land use development project did not constitute a substantial change in the project or circumstances involving significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Therefore, Housing Element Update 2021-2029 did not necessitate a subsequent EIR because it did not create any of the situations contained in State CEQA Guidelines §15162.

In connection with an update to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, the General Plan Safety Element, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and the Local Coastal Program Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 25 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 7 for implementing a Housing Element rezone program, the city prepared a Final SEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 ( City Planning Case No. EIR 2022 -0007) to supplement EIR 13 -02. On January 30, 2024, the City Council certified the SEIR and adopted a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City of Carlsbad 2024). The certified SEIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with the development of housing on 18 sites as part of the Housing Element implementation. The SEIR identified updates to the Carlsbad General Plan, specifically the Land Use and Community Design Element, to allow for this development. The Public Safety Eleme nt would also be updated to ensure consistency with State regulations. Updates to the Land Use and Community Design Element included the addition of two new residential land use designations (R -35 and R -40) for the accommodation of higher density residential development, establishment of revised minimum densities for some residential designations, miscellaneous, related changes to tables, text and policies, and changes to land use designations on multiple sites to accommodate the c ity’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) share. Updates to the Public Safety Element included the addition of the requirements of new State legislation and the incorporation of new policies based on local and regional data. The SEIR found that, with implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update would be less than significant, except impacts on Air Quality, GHG, Noise, and Transportation which would be significant and unavoidable.

Ad
dendum No. 1 to the Final SEIR 2022-0007 was prepared for the 2024 Climate Action Plan Update and was adopted by City Council Resolution No . [pending City Council decision - insert no.] on [insert date] (City of Carlsbad 2024). The changes proposed with the project were relatively minor and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts. Addendum No. 1 to Final SEIR 2022 -0007 determined that none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines §15162 existed.

This Second Addendum to the Final SEI R 2022-0007 (“Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR”) evaluates two components: (1) amending the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; and (2) adopting procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161. These modifications to ordinances and policies and procedures are described in more detail in Section 1. The Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR will describe the effects of the change to the Project on the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 26 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

8 3 Overview of the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15160 of the CEQA Guidelines explains that there are several mechanisms, and variations in environmental documents, that can be tailored to different situations and intended uses of environmental review. Specifically, §15160 states that the “ …variations listed [including Subsequent EIRs, Supplemental EIRs, and a ddendums] are not exclusive. Lead agencies may use other variations consistent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other circumstances.” This provision allows Lead agencies to tailor the use of CEQA mechanisms (such as this a ddendum) to fit the circumstances presented to the lead agency by a project. Here, the city has opted to prepare an addendum to assess the minor modifications of the Project that have transpired since preparation of the EIR.

Public Resources Code §21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when changes are proposed to a project that has a previously certified EIR. When considering the need for additional environmental review, the fundamental determination a lead agency must make is whether the previously certified EIR retains some informational value or whether changes in the project or circumstances have rendered it wholly irrelevant. If the previously certified EIR has continuing informational value, the lead agency then must determine whether the proposed changes in the Project require additional environmental review under Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162.

CEQA Guidelines §1
5164 states that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 27 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 9 environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The analysis pursuant to § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required. The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR/SEIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR/EIR prior to taking an action on the Project.

The city has prepared this Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164, to evaluate whether the proposed Project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – State Clearinghouse Number 2022090339 ( Final SEIR 2022-0007). The following addendum details any changes in the original “p roject,” changes in circumstances under which the original “project” is undertaken, and/or “new information of substantial importance” that may cause one or more significant effects to environmental resources.

The responses herein substantiate and support the city ’s determination that the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project are within the scope of the final EIR/SEIR, and do not require subsequent or supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code §21166 and §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and, in conjunction with the S EIR, preparation of an a ddendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164 is appropriate.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 28 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

10 4 Environmental Effects and Determinations
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in Project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial impo rtance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ NONE
□ Aesthetics □ Air Quality □ Biological Resources
□ Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Climate Change
□ Geology, Soils,
and Seismicity
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Airport Safety, and
Wildfires
□ Historical, Archaeological, and
Paleontological Resources (includes
Tribal Cultural Resources)
□ Hydrology and
Flooding
/Water Quality
□ Land Use Planning, Housing,
and Population
□ Noise □ Public Facilities
and Services
□ Utilities and Service Systems
□ Transportation □ Agriculture &
Forestry
Resources
□ Impacts Not Potentially
Significant: Mineral
Resources
Determination
Based on this analysis, the 2024 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR has continuing informational value and:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the original “project” or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3).

Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required. ■ No substantial changes are proposed in the original “project” and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the “project” will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). Therefore, the preparation of an Addendum to the previously certified SEIR (City of Carlsbad, Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – State Clearinghouse Number 2022090339, dated July 2023) is adequate and appropriate.

Signature: _________________________________ Date: __________________________ Printed Name: ______________________________ Title: __________________________

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 29 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 11 5 Addendum Methodology
The city has previously prepared and certified an EIR for the 2015 General Plan, an Addendum for the CAP Amendment (2020), an Addendum for the Housing Element (2021) , an Addendum for the Jefferson Mixed Use development project, a SEIR for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (2024), and an Addendum for the Climate Action Plan Update (2024) .

Collectively, these CEQA reviews are known as the “Previous CEQA Documents.” No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are presumed valid.

When only some changes or additions to a previously certified EIR/SEIR are necessary and none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are met, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (CEQA Guidelines §15164(a).) In general, adoption or amendment to ordinances and policies and procedures do not directly affect the environment, as ordinances and policies and procedures are intended or developed to guide a local government’s physical, social, and economic growth in the future . However, the lead agency must take account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site impacts, cumulative as well as project -level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, as well as construction and operational impacts. The potential impacts of an adoption or amendment to ordinances and policies and procedures are generally indirect, related to changes in future development patterns. Because of the subject matter (new and expanded airports), impacts related to noise, safety, airspace protection, and aircraft overflight must also be considered.

In conducting its environmental analysis of the proposed Project, and preparing Addendum No. 2 to the Final SEIR, the city looked beyond what direct impacts could be attributable to the Project and also considered how people might respond to the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport. Noise and safety are the two primary airport impact concerns that have the potential to affect the health, safety, and welfare of people and property in the vicinity of an airport and to people on board the aircraft. Safety impacts from aircraft accidents near airports are typically handled by specifying the types of land uses and thus limiting the number of people who would be exposed to the risk of an accident. The other major safety concern is related to land uses that can create hazards to flight. Airspace protection primarily involves limitations on the height of objects on the ground near airports. Additional flight hazards to be considered are activities that can cause electronic or visual impairment to navigation or attract large numbers of birds. Thus, among other things, this addendum evaluates the proposed Project’s indirect and cumulative relationship with the following: (1) the intensity of non-residential development measured in terms of the number of people concentrated in areas most susceptible to aircraft accidents; (2) the density of residential development measured in terms of dwelling units per acre; (3) development or expansion of certain uses that represent special safety concerns regardless of the number of people present; and (4) the extent to which development covers the ground and thus limits the options of where an aircraft in distress can attempt an emergency landing. Therefore, as analyzed in more detail below, the addendum evaluates whether the proposed Project would result in (1) substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to circumstances, related to significant effects, that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (3) new information of substantial importance regarding worsened significant effects, mitigation measures or alternatives now found to be feasible; or new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR/SEIR.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 30 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

12 It is important to note that from a CEQA perspective, the character of the development of the Palomar Airport or the land or areas surrounding the airport would remain the same by which was previously contemplated by the c ity in its certification of the EIR/EIS. The 2021 PAMPU’s desired, long -term outcome or result to extend the runway is not new information or pertinent to this document’s assessment of the conditions to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

• The runway extension was first introduced by the airport proprietors in the 1975 Airport Master Plan. The 1975 Airport Master Plan anticipated “unrestricted” demand to be approximately 500,000 annual operations by the year 1990, but the “constrained” operations at Palomar Airport were anticipated to level-off at 290,000 annual operations by 1995 . (“Unconstrained” or “unrestricted” demand refers to the demand that an airport would expect without taking into account any physical, operational, or legal impediments to an aircraft operator’s use of the airport. The “constrained” forecast of demand takes those airport - specific conditions into account.) The unrestricted forecast for the number of aircraft based at Palomar Airport was determined to be 786, but due to Palomar Airport’s limited space, it was estimated that only 600 based aircraft could be accommodated. The 1975 Airport Master Plan identified a number of improvements that would be needed to meet this anticipated growth.

Of the improvements recommended i n the 1975 Airport Master Plan, the most significant were construction of a new parallel runway and extension of the existing runway. The 1975 Airport Master Plan proposed extending the existing runway, Runway 06 -24, to a landing length of 5,100 feet; it proposed constructing a parallel runway of 3,600 feet to the north. The County performed most of the construction and capital projects that the 1975 Airport Master Plan proposed, but not the extension of Runway 06 -24 or the construction of the parallel runway.
• The County first updated the 1975 Airport Master Plan in 1997, when it adopted the 1997 Airport Master Plan. While the County determined that the orientation and location of Runway 06-24 met FAA standards, the 1997 Airport Master Plan stated that it was desirable to construct additional runway capacity to meet Palomar Airport’s “unconstrained” forecast demand and growing operations. The 1997 Airport Master Plan projected that, by 2015, Palomar Airport would have approximately 610 based aircraft and approxim ately 260,000 annual aircraft operations. As a result, the 1997 Airport Master Plan identified several improvements that would be desirable to meet this anticipated growth, including extending the existing Runway 06-24 by 300 feet to the east. The 1997 Airport Master Plan indicated that the actual need and specific timing for new facilities would be established by levels of aircraft activity. However, the 1997 Airport Master Plan’s forecasted aviation activity has not been realized, and the runway extension was never pursued during the planning period. • T
he 2021 PAMPU anticipates that the Palomar Airport will have up to 12,410 air carrier operations, 12,727 air taxi/commuter operations, 168,958 general aviation operations, and 955 military operations by 2036. This results in approximately 195,050 total operations and 304,673 total enplanements . The exact timing for implementation of airside and landside construction and capital projects are not defined in the 2021 PAMPU because project-specific information had not been fully developed. T he 2021 Airport Master Plan calls for a runway extension of 200 feet (+/ -10%) now and adding an additional 600 feet in the future, beyond the 200-foot extension (total runway length of 5,697) . This alternative would also shift the centerline of Runway 06-24 the runway 104 feet to the north. Final decisions on these projects have not been made.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 31 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 13 All the foregoing (administrative record) predates the city’s certification of the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339, dated July 2023). Thus, the adoption of the 2021 PAMPU EIR and 2021 PAMPU carries no new information or value of significance that was not previously contemplated by the city in its certification of the 2024 SEIR.

The above -described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures (Section 1) have been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “project,” circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the proposed Project. Based upon the environmental chec klist prepared for the Project (Section 6), the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Project do not require additional analysis beyond the analysis previously prepared and distributed in the Final EIR/EIS.

A. The proposed Project neither forbids nor authorizes a use or project/activity that could directly alter the environment. The proposed Project does not directly authorize a use or project/activity that could constitute hazards to people or property or aircraft in flight. The proposed Project does not authorize a new building or structure and it does not increase the number of people expected to occupy a non -residential or residential development in the airport or in the lands or areas surrounding the airport. The proposed Project does not construct, erect, or install tall structures, trees, and other obj ects near airports or on high terrain. The proposed Project does not develop or construct a facility that represent s special safety concerns, attracts wildlife, causes visual impairment, or generates electronic interference.

The legal provisions proposed in the Project are in the nature of a clarification of existing ordinances; the Project’s intent is not to change the scope of city regulation. To the contrary, the intent is to harmonize definitions in state law and city ordinances to ensure consistent application of the law.

B. The proposed Project identified above is within the scope of the Previous CEQA Documents.

1. The EIR/EIS fully analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur from the city’s cumulative build-out (site capacity, yield, sequence, and timing of public and private land development projects/activities). There has been no change to the uniformity the laws, policies, rules, and regulations that relate to future development patterns, including but not limited how the city: (1) authorizes the review, design, and approval of subdivisions; (2) requests dedications of public improvements; (3) collects rel ated permit or impact fees ; or (4) how the city would otherwise require project -level compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and ALUCP. The designated size, area, or degree of the airport, as designated on the city’s General Plan Maps and Zoning Maps , does not change by any measurable or quantifiable dimension. The Palomar Airport continues to have a Public (P) General Plan land use designation and is zoned Industrial (M) pursuant to the CMC.

2. The proposed Project does not regulate the permissible physical uses of land within Palomar Airport (existing boundaries). Rather than applying the scope of the definition to lands or areas within the existing Palomar Airport boundary, the proposed Project Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 32 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

14 would only apply to land outside of, and not currently part of, Palomar Airport.

The proposed Project e ncourages the continued operation of the Palomar Airport as a General Aviation Airport, while specifying and clarifying the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for the orderly expansion of Palomar Airport , without interfering with any existing federal regulations. Nothing substantial , indirectly or cumulatively, has changed with respect to the ’s land use safety compatibility planning efforts and adopted ALUCP c riteria to minimize the risks associated with impacts related to noise, safety, airspace protection, and aircraft overflight. Nothing the city is proposing would have an effect on a ircraft operations, which could continue to rely upon regulations enacted by the FAA and the State of California, as outlined in the State Aeronautics Act. Furthermore, nothing has changed with respect to where the EIR/SEIR assumed where the highest number of aircraft are arriving or departing , where there would be proper safety and airspace protection, or where an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing may occur.

3. Inasmuch as the revisions to the original “project” could be considered a change, for th
e most part the proposed Project merely restates (rather than changing) existing law and specifies and clarifies procedures, which must be followed prior to authorizing new or expanded airport land uses/activities, and thus carries no potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment. The only change is that the proposed code amendments authorize airport-related uses only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport and that the decision -making body to consider new or expanded airport land uses shall be the City Council. The proposed Project does not significantly change the intent of the use of the lands or areas surrounding the airport, as it was originally contemplated in the EIR/SEIR. The addition of the targeted text amendments and adoption of procedures to implement Public Utilities Code § 21161 do not affect the substance of the original “project” that was analyzed in the Previous CEQA Documents, or t he overall evaluation of city’s development potential for projects/activities within the jurisdiction of the city.

C. In addition to changes in the original “project,” CEQA Guidelines § 15162 states that no subsequent EIR shall be required unless substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects. In this instant, the environmental setting has not significantly changed since the original “project” was approved.

At the time of the adoption of the original “project,” the city’s laws, policies, rules, and regulations provided a benchmark to govern development within the Palomar Airport and the land or areas surrounding the airport. Development since that time in the surrounding community has largely occurred in the fashion dictated under the laws, policies, rules, and regulations, with the exception being that it has happened in a less -intensive manner than originally forecasted. However, the environmental circumstances and relevant land use regulations remain mostly the same or are too insubstantial in their effect to require subsequent environmental review.

The potential actions that could be taken by people in response to or to comply with (1) the ame
ndments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program; or (2) the procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21161, would be implemented in accordance with local, state, and federal rules and regulations to protect surrounding communities from Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 33 of 192
Environmental Effects and Determinations
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 15 adverse effects associated with airport operations, such as noise, safety hazards, and wildlife interference. For the most part the proposed Project merely restates (rather than changing) existing law, and thus carries no potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment. There is no change to the uniformity to the various laws, policies, rules, and regulations that relate to future development patterns, including but not limited how the city:
(1) authorizes the review, design, and approval of subdivisions; (2) requests dedications of public improvements; (3) collects related permit or impact fees; or (4) how the city would otherwise require project -level compliance with its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. .

D. Finally, there is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the EIR/SEIR adoption that shows any of the following:

1. T
he proposed Project would result in a significant effect not discussed in the EIR/SEIR (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(A);

2. The proposed Project would substantially increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(B);

3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be fe
asible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects identified, but the city is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(C); and

4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those an
alyzed in the EIR/SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the city is declining to adopt such measures or alternatives (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(D).

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 34 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

16 Addendum 6 Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 35 of 192
Addendum Evaluation

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 17 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 36 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

18 Addendum

Previous CEQA Analysis Aesthetics Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for scenic vistas (AES-1), scenic resources within scenic highways (AES-2), visual quality (AES-3), and light and glare (AES-4) (Section 4.1, Aesthetics).

The certified EIR /SEIR, and related addenda, w ere completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. No legal actions were filed challenging the Previous CEQA Documents and thus are presumed valid.

Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “ project,” circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with the proposed Project would be equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the approved EIR/SEIR.

Please refer to Section 5 for a universal response on whether the proposed Project would result in (1) substantial changes that require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR; (2) substantial changes to circumstances; or (3) new information of substantial importance.

The 2
024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for scenic vistas (AES-1), scenic resources within scenic highways (AES-2), visual quality (AES-3), and light and glare (AES-4) (Section 4.1, Aesthetics).

Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. The proposed Project would not result in new features of substantial heigh t, bulk, or massing and implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects permitted or c onstruction activities that would have substantial adverse effects on existing scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 37 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 19 changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to aesthetics.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 38 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

20 Addendum

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 39 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 21 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

22 Addendum
Previous CEQA Analysis Agriculture and Forestry Resources Findings The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts for converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) ; for conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); and for resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use (Section 4.16.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources).

The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts for converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland); for conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); and for resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use (Section 4.16.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources). Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland or forest land to urban or other uses. There are currently no Williamson Act contra cts in the city and the CAP Update does not propose land use changes that would affect the status of any Williamson Act contracts. Additionally, there are no areas in the city zoned as forest or timberland, therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning any forest land, timberland, or timber land zoned for timberland production. Therefore, the Project would not involve other changes in the exiting Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 41 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 23 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resource s Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 42 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

24 Addendum Air Quality
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 25 Previous CEQA Analysis Air Quality Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State Implementation Plan (AQ-1) with implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1. The 202 4 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure AQ -2 would reduce operational emissions from future development, it would be speculative to quantify such emissions until details of the individual projects are known and concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable (A Q-2). The 202 4 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to exposing offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (AQ -3) with implementation of mitigation measure AQ -3 and mitigation measure AQ -4. The 202 4 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact related to creating objectional odors (AQ-4) (Section 4.2, Air Quality).

The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the S
an Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State Implementation Plan (AQ -1) with implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1. The 2024 SEIR identified th at although mitigation measure AQ -2 would reduce operational emissions from future development, it would be speculative to quantify such emissions until details of the individual projects are known and concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable (A Q-2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to exposing offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations (AQ -3) with implementation of mitigation measure AQ -3 and mitigation measure AQ -4. The 2024 SEIR also iden tified a less than significant impact related to creating objectional odors (AQ -4) (Section 4.2, Air Quality).

Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use, construction of new facilities or retrofitting of existing facilities, would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to air quality conditions in the city . Construction activities would be relatively small in scale, occur intermittently in different locations throughout the city, last for only short periods of time, and would not require substantial relocation of construction workers from areas outside of the city and the San Diego region. Long-term changes would not result in the exceedance of SDAPCD thresholds and would Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 44 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

26 Addendum be considered consistent with the goals of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy or State Implementation Plan. The proposed Project would not result in new emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 from the SEIR are not applicable to the air quality impacts of the proposed Project. The Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to air quality.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The SEIR iden tified mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ -4 for air quality impacts. None of these mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 45 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 27 Biological Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 46 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

28 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 29 Previous CEQA Analysis Biological Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-1) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO- 1 and BIO -2. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-2) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) (BIO-3) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO -1, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO -5. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impac t to interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites (BIO-4) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO -4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (BIO-5) with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (BIO-6) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-7 and BIO-8 (Section 4.3, Biological Resources).

The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-1) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO- 1 and BIO -2. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 48 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

30 California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service (BIO-2) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO-4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) (BIO-3) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO -1, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO -5. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact to interfering substantially with the movement of any nati ve resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites (BIO-4) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-3, and BIO -4. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (BIO-5) with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (BIO-6) with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-7 and BIO-8 (Section 4.3, Biological Resources). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur.

Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. and long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would be of the same time and place as previously identified. Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse direct or indirect effect to special-status species. The proposed Project would not facilitate development in land or areas where riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, and protected biological resources are present. The proposed Project would not result in physical improvements or effects that would result in substantial long-term damage to biological resources.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The Project would not result in more significant impacts related to biological resources. None of these mitigation measures are applicable to the Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 49 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 31 Cultural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 50 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

32 Previous CEQA Analysis Cultural Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 and identified no feasible mitigation measures (CUL-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 (CUL-2). The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact for disturbing any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (CUL-3) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).

The 2024 SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial adverse change in t
he significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 and identified no feasible mitigation measures (CUL-1). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 (CUL-2). The 2024 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact for disturbing any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (CUL -3) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).

Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. and long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would be of the same time and place as previously identified. The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines addresses treatment of cultural resources to avoid substantial adverse effects should they be encountered during ground disturbance activities. Therefore, with adherence to the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines, there would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.

The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines Standard Treatment 11: Post -Review Discoveries section addresses treatment of human remains should they be disturbed as a result of ground disturbing Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 51 of 192
Addendum Evaluation

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 33 activities. Moreover, human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Public Resources Code §5097. The California Health and Safety Code (§§7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains.

Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code §5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and provides for the establishment of the NAHC to resolve any related disputes. All development projects are also subject to State of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 which states that, if human remains are unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to the Public Resources Code §5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (“MLD”). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or suppl emental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no feasible mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 52 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

34 Energy
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 53 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 35 Previous CEQA Analysis Energy Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation or for conflicts with or obstruct ion of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Section 4.16.2, Energy).

The 2024
SEIR identified no impact for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation or for conflicts with or obstructi on of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Section 4.16.2, Energy). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short-term and temporary changes to energy conditions in the city . Long- term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would be required to comply with CALGreen, the latest California Building Code ( “CBC”) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as all local, state, and federal rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation. The proposed Project doesn’t frustrate the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy renewable energy goals and would not conflict with any applicable rule or regulation adopted regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency.

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

36 new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in t he city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a sub sequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to energy.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 55 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 37 Geology and Soils
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
iv. Landslides? Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 56 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

38 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 57 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 39 Previous CEQA Analysis Geology and Soils Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (GEO-1); and for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides (GEO-2). The 202 4 SEIR also identified less than significant impacts for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (GEO-3) and for on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse , and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (GEO-4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (GEO-5) and for the project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (GEO-6) (Section 4.5, Geology and Soils).

The 2024
SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (GEO-1); and for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides (GEO -2). The 202 4 SEIR also identified less than significant impacts for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (GEO-3) and for on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (GEO -4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (GEO -5) and for the project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (GEO-6) (Section 4.5, Geology and Soils). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. The measures identified in the proposed Project do not propose new housing nor do they propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential zoning. The Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 58 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

40 proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil or result in on or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Where applicable, short -term measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as construction, equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short -term and temporary changes to geologic conditions in the city . Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. For measures and actions requiring ground disturbance in areas underlain by sen sitive geologic units, the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines require a review of primary literature and online databases, a paleontological assessment of the project area (plus a one-mile radius) by the San Diego Museum of Natural History, and a field survey to determine if paleontological resources or potentially fossiliferous sediments are present (if the sensitive sediments are exposed at the surface).

The results of these analyses are used to create a Paleontological Assessment Report which will provide recommendations to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources, if necessary. The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines set forth mitigation measures. Additionally, General Plan policies 7 -P.7 through 7 -P.11 of the Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element would reduce impacts to paleontological resources by implementing the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines; requiring monitoring of ground -disturbing activities in areas known to contain paleontological resources; and ensuring proper treatment and consultation of paleontological resources discovered during ground - disturbing activities. With compliance with these guidelines and General Plan policies, implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleont ological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 59 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 41 Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to geology and soils.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 60 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

42 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

The 202 4
SEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact for generating greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and for conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted f or the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG -1). It identifies Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the preparation of this CAP Update to reduce the GHG emissions impacts identified in the 2024 SEIR (Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short -term and temporary changes to greenhouse gas conditions in the city. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. The proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either d irectly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor would implementation of the proposed Project conflict with an ap plicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions.

Conclusion
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 62 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

44 The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The Project would not result in more significant impacts related to biological resources. None of these mitigation measures are applicable to the Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 63 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 45 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 64 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

46 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

SEIR Evaluation Criteria
SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information
of Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Are Only Minor
Technical Changes
or Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
the SEIR?
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan area, or
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant None No No No Yes Yes
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 65 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 47 Previous CEQA Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials Findings The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials (HAZ-1 ); e mitting or handl ing hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (HAZ-2); being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment (HAZ-3); being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (HAZ- 4); and for impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (HAZ-5) (Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

The 2024
SEIR identified less than significant impacts for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials (HAZ- 1); emitting or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (HAZ-2); being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment (HAZ-3); being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (HAZ- 4); and for impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (HAZ-5) (Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 66 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

48 Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR that result in ground disturbance, would be remediated to allowable regulatory levels in accordance with applicable county and state regulations before any ground -disturbing activities are permitted to occur. I mplementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being located on a hazardous materials site. The proposed Project would not result in new or relocated residential land uses, other types of noise -sensitive receptors, or new places of permanent employment where residents or workers could be exposed to a safety hazard or excessive noise near the airport. Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose residents or workers to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 67 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 49 Hydrology and Water Quality
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 68 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

50 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 70 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

52 Previous CEQA Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality Findings The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements (WDR’s ), or otherwise degradation of surface or ground water quality (HYD-1); decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge (HYD-2); altering the existing drainage pattern s through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (HYD-3); impede or redirect flood flows or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (HYD-4); conflicts with or obstruct ion of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (HYD-5) (Section 4. 8, Hydrology and Water Quality).

The 20
24 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements ( “WDRs”), or otherwise degradation of surface or ground water quality (HYD -1); decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge (HYD-2); altering the existing drainage patterns through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (HYD-3); impede or redirect flood flows or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (HYD-4); conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (HYD -5) (Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 71 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 53 existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identifi ed) and be short -term and temporary changes to water conditions in the city . However, the ground disturbing activities would be temporary and intermittent and would not involve the substantial use of groundwater or otherwise affect recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project would not involve development of residential land uses or other types of land development or induce population growth in an area that would increase water demand. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. Where applicable, measu res and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR that result in ground disturbance, would be addressed by existing local rules and regulations. The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires BMPs to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects as a requirement of the Mun icipal Stormwater Permit. Furthermore, the city ’s Low Impact Development Ordinance in Chapter 15.12 aims to specifically reduce the amount of surface runoff and aid in groundwater recharge through techniques such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and additional uses in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MS4 permit and the standards manual. The proposed Project would not result in new or relocated residential land uses, alter the existing drainage patterns or contribute runoff water in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, nor would it exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 72 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

54 Land Use and Planning
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 73 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 55 Previous CEQA Analysis Land Use and Planning Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impact for physically dividing an established community (LU-1) and a less than significant impact for conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation (LU- 2) (Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning).

The 2024
SEIR identified no impact for physically dividing an established community (LU-1) and a less than significant impact for conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation (LU- 2) (Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in physical improvements that could physically divide a community.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not change existing land uses that are reflected in all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the city’s 2015 General Plan (as amended city Council Resolution No. 2021-073 on April 6, 2021). Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, rule or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

56 Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to land use and planning.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 75 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 57 Mineral Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

58 Previous CEQA Analysis Mineral Resources Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (Section 4.16.3, Mineral Resources).

The 202
4 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (Section 4.16.3, Mineral Resources). The city does not have mineral resources of economic value or active mining sites, therefore the 2024 SEIR identified no impacts to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Similarly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 77 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 59 identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to mineral resources.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 78 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

60 Noise
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

62 Previous CEQA Analysis Noise Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure NOI -1 would reduce construction noise impacts for projects located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses, it conservatively concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to construction activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ( NOI-1). The 202 4 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to operational activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (NOI-2). The 202 4 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (NOI- 3) with implementation of mitigation measure NOI -2. The 202 4 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact related to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or (NOI-4) (Section 4.10, Noise).

The 2024 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure NOI -1 would reduce construction noise impacts for projects located within 500 feet of noise -sensitive land uses, it conservatively concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to construction activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ( NOI-1). The 202 4 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to operational activities generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (NOI-2). The 202 4 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (NOI- 3) with implementati on of mitigation measure NOI -2. The 202 4 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact related to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or (NOI -4) (Section 4.10, Noise). Implementation of the proposed Project would not Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 81 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 63 change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. all would be similar in impact (same time and place as previously identified) and be short -term and temporary chan ges to noise conditions in the city. Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would be subject to existing city noise policies and regulations and General Plan policies and programs, specifically those found in the Noise Element, and other local polices and regulations pertaining to noise at any development site. Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( “OSHA”) standards for worker safety would minimize exposure of workers to excessive noise levels. Long-term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would also be of the same time and place as previously identified. Implementation of measures and actions included in the proposed Project would not create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels or produce a new permanent source of noise, and construction-related noise impacts would be reduced through enforcement of applicable city or other noise policies. The proposed Project does not propose any new sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) that could be adversely impacted from noise associated with aircraft flyovers.

Temporary construction workers would not be adversely affected by aircraft flyover as noise generated from construction equipment would be the dominant noise exposure to them, which is generally dealt with by wearing ear plugs to prevent hearing damage. Furthermore, long -term maintenance workers would not sleep on -site; thus, they would not be exposed to potential sleep disturbance from aircraft flyovers. Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working near an airport to excessive airport/aircraft noise.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The SEIR identified Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI -2 for noise impacts. Neither of these mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 82 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

64 Population and Housing
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 83 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 65 Previous CEQA Analysis Population and Housing Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for unplanned population growth ( PH-1) and substantial displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (PH-2) (Section 4.11, Population and Housing).

Addendum Analysis
The above-described targeted text amendments to city ordinances and policies and procedures have been evaluated under CEQA to determine whether such changes in the original “ project,” circumstances, or information would trigger the need for any subsequent or supplemental environmental documentation based on new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. This is inclusive of secondary effects that may be reasonably foreseeable and caused by the proposed Project. After a thorough factual evaluation, the city has determined that no further environmental review is required, and as identified in the analysis below, all impacts associated with the proposed Project would b e equivalent to, or less than, the impacts previous analyzed in the approved EIR/SEIR.

The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for unplanned population growth ( PH-1) and substantial displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (PH-2) (Section 4.11, Population and Housing). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace people or housing because the Project would not require the removal of existing housing and would not propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential zoning or otherwise increase population growth in the city or surrounding areas . Implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

66 Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to population and housing.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 85 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 67 Public Services
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

68 Previous CEQA Analysis Public Services Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services , including fire protection services (PS-1), police protection services (PS-2), and schools (PS-3) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation).

The 2024
SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services , including fire protection services (PS -1), police protection services (PS-2), and schools (PS -3) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. The proposed Project would not generate new or increased demand for fire protection services or interfere with or modify the ability of police and fire protection services to meet performance objectives or response times outlined in the 2024 SEIR. The proposed Project does not include development of new residences or the creation of substantial numbers of permanent jobs requiring increased fire or police services. The proposed Project would not induce population growth in the community that would require school services, new or expanded park facilities, other public facilities. The proposed Project would not generate increased demand for public services such that construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain adequate service ratios.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.

Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 87 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 69 certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions t o the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city ’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code § 21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR identified to reduce impacts rela ted to public services.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 88 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

70 Recreation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 89 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 71 Previous CEQA Analysis Recreation Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives (PS-4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and for including recreational facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (PS-4) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation).

The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives (PS-4). The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and for including recreational facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (PS -4) (Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation ).

Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. The proposed Project would not generate new or increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. Typically, this impact occurs when a project induces population growth, such as new development or a business that would necessitate a large number of new employees. The proposed Project does not include development of new residences or the creation of substantial numbers of permanent jobs. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities nor increase the use of recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration would occur or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 90 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

72 Conclusion
The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR identified to reduce impacts rela ted to recreation.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 91 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 73 Transportation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 92 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

74 Previous CEQA Analysis Transportation Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact for conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (T-1). The 202 4 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure T-1 would aim to achieve VMT reductions for development projects, it concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (T -2). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (T -3) and for inadequate emergency access (T-4) (Section 4.13, Transportation).

The 2024
SEIR identified a less than significant impact for conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (T-1). The 202 4 SEIR identified that although mitigation measure T-1 would aim to achieve VMT reductions for development projects, it concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable related to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b). The 2024 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (T-3) and for inadequate emergency access (T-4) (Section 4.13, Transportation). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects /activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed Project wou ld not induce substantial population or employment growth in the city that would in turn generate increased Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b). Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would be subject to local rules and regulations. The city maintains improvement standards that guide the construction of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the s ystem. Furthermore, General Plan policies 3-P.10, 3-P.12, 3-P.13, and 3-P.16 would reduce impacts related to safety.

Conclusion
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 93 of 192
Addendum Evaluation

Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 75 The certified EIR /SEIR were completed in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. F urther, the certified EIR/SEIR remains pertinent and continues to have strong informational value. The 2024 SEIR did not identify significant population and housing impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any o f the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
The 2024 SEIR identified Mitigation Measure T-1 for transportation impact T-2 . This mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 94 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

76 Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 96 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

78 Previous CEQA Analysis Tribal Cultural Resources Findings The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (CUL-4) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources).

The 2024
SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (CUL-4) (Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Construction activities associated with the 2024 SEIR, such as equipment use and staging of materials, ground disturbances, removing existing pavement, repaving roadway surfaces, painting or restriping pavement, modifying curbs, laying concrete, installing traffic signals or lighting, installing landscaping, etc. and long -term changes such as improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways and land development projects would be of the same time and place as previously identified. The Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines addresses identification and treatment of tribal cultural resources that may be impacted as a result of measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k). The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 97 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 79 tribal cultural resource, pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code §5024.1(c).

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any o f the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 202 4 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 98 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

80 Utilities and Service Systems
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 99 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 81 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 100 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

82 Previous CEQA Analysis Utilities and Service Systems Findings The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities (UTIL-1); sufficient water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry years (UTIL-2); adequate wastewater treatment capacity (UTIL-3); the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wa ste (UTIL-4) (Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems).

The 2024
SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities (UTIL -1); sufficient water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry years (UTIL-2); adequate wastewater treatment capacity (UTIL -3); the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (UTIL -4) (Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems). Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase development or induce population growth directly or indirectly, because measures and actions do not propose new housing nor do they propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential or nonresidential zoning. The proposed Project would not result in demand for new or expanded infrastructure, including water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, natural gas or telecommunication facilities would not increase to serve new population or development. The implementation of the proposed Project would not involve development of residential communities or other non-residential development or induce population growth in an area that would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Further, it would not involve the construction of restroom facilities. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 101 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum No. 2
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR 83 new habitable structures (e.g., housing, nonresidential development) that would generate wastewater. Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce increased residential or non - residential development, or population growth directly or indirectly, and there would be no increase in solid waste production.

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 102 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

84 Wildfire
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 103 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum 85
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent SEIR Needed?

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 104 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

86 Previous CEQA Analysis Wildfire Findings
The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for wildfire emergency response, access, and evacuation (WF-1); and related to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes; and exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (WF-2) (Section 4.15, Wildfire).

The 2024 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for wildfire emergency response, access, and e
vacuation (WF-1); and related to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes; and exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (WF -2) (Section 4.15, Wildfire).

Implementation of the proposed Project would not change the types of projects/activities permitted or where construction may occur. The implementation of the proposed Project would not involve development of residential communities or other non-residential development or induce population growth in an area that is subject to potential evacuations and the proposed Project would not r esult in alterations of public roadways. Although the city is located within a Local Responsibly Area Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and adjacent to a State Responsibility Area Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the proposed Project would not include the construction of new housing and do not propose changes to policies or regulations related to land use or residential zoning. The proposed Project would not introduce new occupants that could be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of as wildfire or require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel brakes, emergency water sources, power lines or other Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 105 of 192
Addendum Evaluation
Addendum 87
utilities). Where applicable, measures and actions associated with the 2024 SEIR would comply with the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (“EOP”) and be subject to the California Fire Code (“CFC”), which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure, downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Compliance with applicable policies, codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire.

Revisions to the original “project” to specify and clarify the city’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses do not result in new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the approved EIR/SEIR. There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the EIR/SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of prev iously identified effects. Since the adoption of the Previous CEQA Documents, there have been no substantial changes in the city’s laws, policies, rules, regulations, that relate to actions contemplated by the Project. Neither has there been new information, or a change of circumstances which would invalidate the Previous CEQA Documents. It is not foreseeable that impacts from physical projects/activities associated with the proposed Project would have greater or different impacts than those identified in the approved EIR/SEIR. Therefore, the Project does not trigger any of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in Public Resources Code §21166 or §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore an Addendum is the appropriate document to address the Project.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the SEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the 2024 SEIR identified to reduce impacts related to wildfire.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 106 of 192
EIA2024-0004 (PUB2024-0008)

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORTS

88 7 References
Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of Addendum. All documents cited or referenced are incorporated into the Addendum in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§15148 and 15150, including but not limited to the following:

City of Carlsbad. 2015. City of Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available :
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community- development/planning/general-plan/related- documents/-folder-773. Accessed J uly 20, 2024.

_________. 2020. An Addendum to the Previously Certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan (PEIR 13-02). Available:
https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5154824&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad.

Accessed July 20, 2024.

_________
. 2021. 2021 Housing Element Update Addendum. Available:
https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5312802&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad&cr=

1. Accessed J uly 20, 2024.

_________. 2024. City of Carlsbad Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281700- 3/attachment/_PFNFkSV8FCkmdU1hXlW25tF98n-
BZ_pdzLkWZUQ3Kc2CA6Q1LZ_Xp9kUhHB0NSwdr7p4ccqp_dRZJ4S0. Accessed J uly 20, 2024.

County of San Diego. 1997. 1997 Airport Master Plan Update. Available:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/CRQ_MasterPla n1997.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024.

_________. 2021. Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/Master- Plan-
Update/2021/B-PEIR_Nov2021.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024.

_________. 2021. 2021 Airport Master Plan Update. Available:

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/palomar/documents/Master-Plan- Update/2021/H-Master_Plan_Update_2021.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2024.

In each instance where a document is incorporated by reference for purposes of this Addendum, the Addendum shall briefly summarize the incorporated document, or briefly summarize the incorporated data if the document cannot be summarized. In addition, the Addendum shall explain the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Addendum.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 107 of 192
Exhibit 2
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 108 of 192
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-258

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT TO SPECIFY AND CLARIFY CODE

REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW AND

EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES
CASE NAME:

CASE NO.:

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED

AIRPORT LAND USES
GPA2024-0001 (PUB2024- 0008)
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") is an operating mode of the U.S.

Department of Transportation - Title 49 of the United States Code {49 U.S.C. §106), and, among other things, regulates airports and provides guidance and standar ds for airport design, construction, and operations, and administers other rules within Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("14 CFR Aeronautics and Space" ); and
WHEREAS, the general balance between local, state, and federal authority in the context of aviation regulation is well established . The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate aircraft safety and the efficient use of the airspace. Outside those fields, local or state agencies may enact laws, policies, rules, or regulations so as long as federal law, including FAA regulation, does not preempt those state or local laws; and
WHEREAS, the FAA publishes advisory circulars to provide guidance to airport proprietors on compliance with certain requirements imposed by the FAA. Advisory Circular, AC No: 150/5070 - 6B - July 2005, provides guidance for the preparation of airport master plans to support the modernization or expansion of existing airports or the creation of new airports that range in size and function from small, privately owned airstrips to large hub commercial airports; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §§21001 et seq.) "is to protect the public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress." The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautic s, administers much of this statute; and WHEREAS, the Division of Aeronautics publishes a California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which establishes statewide guidelines for airport land use compatible planning based on the State Aeronautics Act; and
WHEREAS, the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670) requires each county in which an airport is located to establish a seven -member Airport Land Use Commission ( “ALUC”).

The ALUC is an advisory group that works to “assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of” airports (Public Utilities Code §21674(a). The State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670.3) specifies that the ALUC is responsible for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) for each airport . An ALUCP provides for the orderly growth of an airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the ALUC, excluding existing land uses; and WHEREAS, the McClellan-Palomar Airport (“Palomar Airport”) is owned and operated by the County of San Diego (“County”) and was annexed to the City of Carlsbad (“City”) on Sept. 11, 1978.

In order to comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code , the Local Area Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) required an appropriate zoning designation be placed upon the airport property and for the County to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City (LAFCO Annexation Case No. CA77-50); and
WHEREAS, at the time of its annexation, the future development and growth of the Palomar Airport was set forth in a master plan that was prepared in 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Palomar Airport Master Plan (“1975 PAMP”); and
WHEREAS, on Sept. 24, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Planning Case No. CUP-172; Resolution No. 1699) as a condition of the Palomar A irport’s annexation into the City and rezoning of the land for airport-related uses; and WHEREAS, by the mid -1990s, the County began working on an update to the 1975 PAMP , called the Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, which was approved and accepted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 16, 1997 (“1997 PAMPU”); and WHEREAS, on Jan. 25, 2010, the Board of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority , acting in its capacity as the ALUC for the County, pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21670.3, adopted an ALUCP for Palomar Airport based on the 1997 PAMPU; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2010, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority adopted the first amendment to the ALUCP for Palomar Airport; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 1, 2011, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority adopted the second amendment to the ALUCP for Palomar Airport (“2011 ALUCP”), as previously adopted by the Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 109 of 192
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority on Jan. 25, 2010, and previously amended on March 4, 2010; and
WHEREAS, according to Public Utilities Code §21676(b), review of county or city plans and projects pertaining to airport land use compatibility is one of the fundamental responsibilities of ALUCs. These local government actions fall into two broad groups: (1) land use related, including general plans and zoning ordinances, building regulation, or individual development projects; and (2) airport related, including plans for the construction or expansion of an airport; and WHEREAS, the FAA sets industry design standards for airports based upon the size and speed of aircraft that use a particular airport. The design standards are set forth in FAA Advisory Circular, AC No: 150/5300- 13B – March 2022, which provides industry standards for airport geometries, layouts, and designs, all of which fall into design categories called Airport Reference Codes (“ARCs”).

Runways are given an alpha designation (A, B, C, D, & E) based on an aircraft’s approach speed and given an Airplane Design Group indicated by numeric codes (I, II, III, IV, V, & VI) which are based on wingspan and tail height; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the Palomar Airport’s annexation into the City, and as of this writing, the ARC for the Palomar Airport is a B-II classification; and WHEREAS, on Dec. 16, 2015, the County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to update the 1997 PAMPU to consider changes to the airport design, including exten sion of the existing airport runway; and
WHEREAS, on Sept. 19, 2019, the City Council approved two resolutions, City Council Resolution No. 2019-178 and Resolution No. 2019-179. Resolution No. 2019-178 formally opposed the County’s selected Airport Master Plan Update option that extended the runway by up to 800 feet. Resolution No. 2019- 179 formally supported the Airport Master Plan Update option that did not include a runway extension; and
WHEREAS, o n Dec. 08, 2021, the County Board of Supervisors certified a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (“2021 PEIR”) and adopted the Palomar Airport Master Plan Update (“2021 PAMPU”).

WHEREAS, the City Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 110 of 192
pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.52.020, amendments to the Ci ty’s General Plan, Zoning Code, or Local Coastal Program may be initiated by a property owner, the City Planner, the Planning Commission, or the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent (Resolution No. 2024-086,) to authorize the processing of code amendment applications to specify and clarify the City’s code requirements and permit review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Project”) , in accordance with the 1978 annexation agreement between the City and County, as detailed in the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Government Code §§65450 – 65457, Government Code §§65350 et seq., Government Code §§66410 et. seq., and Government Code §§ 65864 – 65869.5, said verified application in its entirety constitutes amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element (“General Plan”), Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), and Local Coastal Program (the main land use document for coastal area development and natural resource protection); and
WHEREAS, said verified application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Divis
ion of the Community Development De partment as Planning Case Nos. GPA2024- 0001 / ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024- 0021 (PUB2024-0008) in accordance with t he rules and regulations of Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the applicable procedures and time limits specified by the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code §§ 65920 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, an original copy of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordin
ance, and Local Coastal Program and all other related Project materials are on file in the Planning Division, with a copy of each document submitted to the City Council for its consideration.

The Planning Division, located at 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad CA 92008, is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, wh ich documents and materials shall be available for Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 111 of 192
public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act; and
WHEREAS, on Aug. 16, 2024, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting as the ALUC, automatically determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the 2011 ALUCP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000 et. seq., the City is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA, Addendum No. 2 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007), relative to the Project was prepared and the City Council has adopted it per a companion resolution on Nov. 19, 2024 (Exhibit 1 to the City Council staff report);
WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2
024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Project; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7524, 7525, and 7526 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on Oct. 16, 2024, in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. The public hearing allowed interested persons to appear and present their views. Evidence was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing, including, without limitation:
a. Written information;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public; c. The Planning Commission staf f report, dated Oct. 16, 2024, which along with its attachments is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, d. The City Council staff report, dated Nov. 19, 2024; and e. Additional information submitted during the public hearing.

WHEREAS, t he Ci ty Council has determined that it is necessary to update ordinances and/or policy documents to improve clarity and specify code requirements for new or expanded airport land uses, pursuant to the 1978 Annexation Agreement between the City and County, as detailed in the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C4FA v. County of San Diego; and Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 112 of 192
WHEREAS, the San Diego Superior Court’s ruling in C 4FA v. County of San Diego held that the County waived its immunities. The County obtained CUP-172 as a condition of the City’s annexation of the Palomar Airport as a General Aviation Airport and rezoning of the land for airport -related uses; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the City Council bas es its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) Project -related environmental documents, and any appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and the Project itself; (3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699 (CUP-172) and its exhibits and attachments; (4) the 1975 PAMP, 1997 PAMPU, and 2021 PAMPU and its appendices and supplementary materials as adopted by the County; (5) the 2011 ALUCP; (6) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (7) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; ( 8) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project itself; ( 9) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the Project itself; (10) all other matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections re lated to development within the city and its surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly drafted this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the understanding that this information is complete, true, and accurate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

2. The City Council finds that the amendments to the General Plan, which are attached hereto as Attachment A , are consistent with the General Plan as amended Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 113 of 192
hereinafter, in that the goals, objectives, and policies of said planning documents have been or will be met. A complete analysis of consistency is provided in Exhibit 5 of the Oct. 16, 2024 Planning Commission staff report. The City Council accepts and makes these findings as its own, are hereby incorporated herein by reference (with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein) . There is substantial evidence in the record to support such an implied set of findings. The City Council further finds that the Project is consistent with City Council Resolution Nos. 7530, 2019-178, and 2019-179.

3. The City Council ﬁnds that the Project is consistent with laws, policies, rules, regulations, and the purposes of the 2011 ALUCP . Until such time that the 2011 ALUCP is updated to account for the 2021 PAMPU, the 2011 ALUCP will continue to be utilized as a plan of record for new land development projects near the Palomar Airport. As set forth above, any land development permits proposed will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in the 2011 ALUCP . Deference to the provisions of the 2011 ALUCP ensures strict adherence to land use measures that protect the public and minimize their exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Requiring compliance with the provisions of the 2011 ALUCP as a speciﬁc ﬁnding eliminates t he risk of conﬂicting provisions between ordinances and/or policy documents, and future updates to the ALUCP because the most current adopted version of the ALUCP is the basis for the proposed ﬁndings.

Because the 2011 ALUCP was adopted by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority to fulﬁll the purpose set forth in Public Utilities Code §21670(a)(2), required compliance with the 2011 ALUPC by its very nature is consistent with that purpose.

4. Notices of public review and for the Nov. 19, 2024 City Council meeting were made at the time and in the manner required by law.

5. Pursuant to the above ﬁndings, the City Council therefore adopts the amendments to the General Plan as shown in Attachment A.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 114 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 115 of 192
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BLACKBURN, BHAT-PATEL, ACOSTA, BURKHOLDER, LUNA.

NONE.

KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Attachment A
GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008)

City of Carlsbad
Proposed General Plan Amendments

SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS

Amend the policy 2-P.39 of the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan to read as specified below.

2-P.39 New and Expanded Airport Land Uses.

a. The current Airport Reference Code for McClellan-Palomar Airport, defined in the FAA’s Airport Design Advisory Circular, is a B-II design classification. The city supports a B-II Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar design classification, as set forth in the Airport Master Plan, so long as that classification does not require a runway extension. The city opposes any changes to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan or approach speed design for the airfield (for example, a reclassification as D-III Modified Standards Compliance as described in the Airport Master Plan), or that would otherwise accommodate larger aircraft than currently in use at the airport.

b. Require new or expanded airport uses to obtain a conditional use permit or a conditional use permit amendment, subject to City Council approval. Permit airport development only within the current boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport (as shown in Figure 2-1).

c. Prohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, except in compliance with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.

d. The State Public Utilities Code definitions of “airport” and “airport expansion” shall apply to the terms contained in this element.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 116 of 192
Exhibit 3
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 117 of 192
ORDINANCE NO. CS-479

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND A LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 21)

OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFY AND CLARIFY CODE

REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW AND

EXPANDED AIRPORT LAND USES
CASE NAME:

CASE NOS.:

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORT

LAND USES
ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolut ion No. 7525 recommending to the City Council that GPA2024-0001 / ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024- 0008) be approved; and
WHEREAS, as required by state law, a six-week notice of availability was issued for LCPA2024- 0021 from May 21, 2024, to July 8, 2024. Comments were received and included with the administrative record for the Project, and forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 {PUB2024-0008); and WHEREAS at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors, including written public comments, if any, related to ZCA2024-0003 / LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California , ordains as follows that:

1. The above recitation s are true and correct .

2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7525 shall also constitute the finding s of the City Council.

3. That the creation or establi shment of airport hazards is a public nuisance.

4. That, in the interest of the public health, public safety and general welfare , creation or establishment of airport hazards affecting the operation of the airports should be reduced or eliminated .

5. That airport hazards can be reduced or eliminated by establishing boundaries for new or expanded airports.

6. The purpose of this ordinance is not to interfere with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) re quirements (to the extent that such requirements preempt action by the city), but to operate in conjunction with those policies, laws, rules, and regulations to reduce or eliminate adverse airport impacts, public nuisances and to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing herein shall be construed to : (1) affect in any manner any of the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA , (2) violate safety regulations set by the FAA, or (3) to limit any proprietary right to provide General Aviation Airport aeronautical services.

7. That Chapter 21.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended with the additions of Sections 21.04.024 and 21.04.140.1, to read as follows:

21.04.024 Airport
“Airport” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21013.

21.04.140.1 Expansion.
“Expansion” means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or land use including the physical size of the property, building, parking and other improvements. In the context of airports, “airport expansion” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5. The acquisition of any real property interest which FAA requires to be depicted on the airport layout plan is included in this definition.

8. That Chapter 21.07 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports” from Section 21.07.020 Table A, as follows:

Section 21.07.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

9. Th
at Chapter 21.29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports” from Section 21.29.030 Table A, as follows:

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 118 of 192

I I - I I
Section 21.29.030 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

10. Th
at Chapter 21.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “airports” from Section 21.30.010 Table A, as follows:

Section 21.30.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

11. Th
at Chapter 21.32 o f the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to add a footnote to “airports” in Section 21.32.010 Table A, to read as follows:

Section 21.32.010 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 3 below) 3

3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.

12. That Chapter 21.34 o f the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to delete “air courier services” and “airlines oﬃces, general oﬃces;” and to add a footnote to “airports” in Section 21.34.020 Table A, to read as follows:

Section 21.34.020 Table A
Use P CUP Acc
Air courier services (see note 1 below) X
Airlines offices, general offices (see note 1 below) X
Airports (see note 6 below) 3
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 119 of 192

I I - I I

I I I I

6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.

13. That Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to update subsection C and with the addition of subsections D and E, to read as follows:

21.54.125 Amendments to development permits.

A. For purposes of this section, “development permit” means any permit, entitlement or approval required pursuant to Title 21 of this code, or pursuant to any applicable master, specific, or redevelopment plan.

B. Any approved development permit may be amended by following the same procedure required for the approval of said development permit (except that if the city council approved the original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment), and upon payment of the application fee contained in the most recent fee schedule adopted by the city council.

C. If an approved development permit was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.54.040 of this title, any amendment to said permit shall be acted on by the decision -making authority that approved the original permit, except that if the city council approved the original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment.

D. Notwithstanding subsections B and C, the City Council shall retain the decision-making authority for amendments to development permits for new or expanded airport uses.

E. Amendments to approved de
velopment permits are reviewed under the city ordinances, policies, or standards in effect at the time of the amended permit application is filed and deemed complete or determined to be complete. In granting an amendment, the decision -making authority may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions.

14. I f
any title, division, chapter, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court, that decision does not aﬀect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder of this Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 120 of 192
-
ordinance or the reminder of the city’s code. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES OUT SIDE THE COASTAL ZONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES INSIDE THE COASTAL ZONE:

This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption or upon Coastal Commission approval of LCPA2024-0021, whichever occurs later; and the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 121 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 122 of 192
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 19th day of November, 2024, and thereafter
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the_ day of ___ ~ 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:

CINDIE K. McMAHON, City Attorney
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Exhibit 4
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 123 of 192
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-259

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE §21661.6
CASE NAME:

CASE NO.:

CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEW AND EXPANDED AIRPORT

LAND USES
OAJ2024-0001 (PUB2024-0008)
WHEREAS, the McClellan-Palomar Airport ("Palomar Airport") is owned and operated by the County of San Diego ("County " ) and was annexed to the City of Carlsbad ("City" ) on Sept. 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, airport master plans are prepared to support planning for future needs for existing airport s. The last airport master plan completed for Palomar Airport was adopted on Dec. 08, 2021, which was developed by the County to address potential future needs of the Palomar Airport ("2021 PAMPU"). The 2021 PAMPU identifies several improvements to meet and accommodate predicted growth in operations, including extension of the existing runway to support a fleet of larger aircraft; and
WHEREAS, because the 2021 PAMPU contemplates acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the Palomar Airport (and those properties are located within the limits of the City), under California law (Public Utilities Code §21661.6) the acquisition of the property may not begin until: (1) the County submits a plan detailing the propo sed uses of the property to the City; and (2) the City holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan; and WHEREAS, the City Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules, and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution , and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all right s, power s, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California ; and
WHEREAS, on Dec. 17, 2019, a minute motion was made by the City Council that, in part , directed the City Manager and the City Attorney to coordinate and bring back to Council specific procedures outlining a proce ss the City of Carlsbad would use to consider an application for the approval of the acquisition of property where such approval is required under Public Utilitie s Code §21661.6 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Project" ); and WHEREAS, an original copy of the proposed procedures and all other related Project materials are on file in the Planning Division, with a copy of each document submitted to the City Council for its consideration. The Planning Division, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council 's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), 14 California Code of Regulations §§15000 et. seq., the C ity is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project. Pursuant to CEQA, Addendum No. 2 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339 (Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007), relative to the Project was prepared and the City Council has adopted it per companion resolution on Nov. 19, 2024 (Exhibit 1 to the City Council staff report); and WHEREAS, on Oct. 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing as pres
cribed by law to consider the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7524, 7525, and 7526 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on Oct. 16, 2024, in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. The public hearing allowed interested persons to appear and present their views. Evidence was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing, including, without limitation:
a. Written information;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public; c. The Planning Commission staff report, dated Oct. 16, 2024, which along with its attachments is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein; d. The City Council staff report, dated Oct. 16, 2024; and e. Additional information submitted during the public hearing.

WHEREAS, t he Ci ty Council has determined that it is necessary to adopt procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating the City of Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 124 of 192
Carlsbad’s role, review, and approval of an application for approval of a plan for airport expansion or enlargement or where there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, including necessary findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21661.6 (“Procedures”); and WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the City Council bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) Project -related environmental documents, and any appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the environmental documents; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to Addendum No. 2 to the SEIR and the Project itself; (3 ) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; ( 4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project itself; ( 6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or submitted to the City during the comment period and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the Project itself; ( 7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the City, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City staff from the Planning Division and Office of the City Attorney have jointly drafted this resolution based on the information provided in the administrative record, with the understanding that this information is complete, true, and accurate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

2. The City Council finds that the acquisition of additional property beyond the current boundaries of the airport is subject of interest to the local businesses, residents, and other community members of Carlsbad and the cities of San Marcos and Vista, among others. The Procedures, which are attached hereto as Attachment A as though fully set forth herein, are designed to provide an expeditious review of County applications for approval of plans Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 125 of 192
to acquire property as required by Public Utilities Code §21661.6, while ensuring that all interested parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on such applications.

3. The City Council further finds that the Pro cedures do not affect the existing rights and obligations of the County under existing statutes and regulations but are legally binding in their own right. Any acquisition of any interest in real property authorized under the Public Utilities Code would ha ve to be considered by the City Council at a publi c hearing as required by Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

4. The airport master plan and its appendices and supplementary materials as adopted by the County does not relieve a person or persons from the responsibility of complying with applicable laws, policies, rules, regulations of any city, state, and federal agencies.

5. Pursuant to the above ﬁndings, the City Council therefore APPROVES the Pr ocedures (Attachment A; Planning Case No. OAJ2024-0001).

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 126 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 127 of 192
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 19th day of November, 2024, by the following vote , to wit :

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BLACKBURN, BHAT-PATEL, ACOSTA, BURKHOLDER, LUNA.

NONE.

KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Attachment A

Procedures for the City of Carlsbad’s Review
for New or Expanded Airport Land Uses

This paper outlines the procedures concerning noticing, standards for review, and other matters relating to the City of Carlsbad’s role, review, and approval of an airport expansion or enlargement plan or where there is an acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport, including necessary ﬁndings pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) §21661.6 (“Procedures”).

Nothing in this paper or implementation of thereof, aﬀects any City Council action regarding local land use requirements to obtain a conditional use permit, conditional use permit amendment, or zoning map or text change, or any other action related to compliance with City Code requirements.

I. INTRODUCTION

The McClellan-Palomar Airport
(“Airport”) is owned and operated by
the County of San Diego and located
north of Palomar Airport Road
between College Avenue and El
Camino Real. Palomar Airport is a
federally funded public use airport.

The County operates the Airport
subject to regulation by the State of
California and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).

The single-runway Airport opened as the Palomar Airport in 1959 after County oﬃcials decided to replace the Del Mar Airport. The Airport was annexed to the City of Carlsbad (“City”) in 1978 and renamed the McClellan-Palomar Airport in 1982. Today, the Airport provides general aviation, corporate, scheduled charter, and commercial services; and is utilized by local businesses, residents, and other community members. The FAA sets industry standards for airport design based upon the largest aircraft that commonly uses an airport. (FAA deﬁnes common use as 500 operations per year.) The Airport currently meets the FAA design criteria for B-II Airport Reference Code (ARC). The County’s Airport Master Plan and proposed airport layout plan recommends runway improvements so that the Airport can meet D-III design Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 128 of 192
C cityaf
Carlsbad
. c.ollege Bh,~. •
Mcctellan.p 1.

A. aoma, "Port:

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
2 | Page

criteria.1 Adherence to this higher level of design may require that the County expand the Airport or enlarge areas designated or set aside for the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft or utilized or to be utilized to preserve the safety of aircraft operations or the safety of persons or property on the ground in the vicinity of aircraft operations.

I
f the County were to implement its Airport Master Plan as drafted, the County would need to acquire property beyond the current boundaries of the Airport (and those properties are located within the limits of the City). California law (PUC §21661.6) provides that the acquisition of the property to expand an airport may not begin until:

• The County submits a plan detailing the proposed uses of the property to the City; and • The City holds a public hearing on the plan and subsequently approves that plan.

The potential acquisition of additional property is subject of interest to the local businesses, residents, and other community members of Carlsbad and the cities of San Marcos and Vista, among others. The procedures presented here are designed to provide an expeditious review of any County proposal (presumably consistent with its Airport Master Plan Update (“Expansion Plan”), while ensuring that all interested parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on any potential acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the Airport.

Since its opening, the Airport has been a topic of concern for many residents because of its impact on the community. The City has imposed limitations on growth of the Airport in a variety of ways, including through annexation and issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP-172, approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1699). In addition, the City Council amended the Carlsbad Municipal Code in 1980 to include Section 21.53.015, which requires an aﬃrmative public vote before the City Council can take any legislative action necessary to authorize expansion of the Airport.

1 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses an Airport Reference Code (ARC) to establish safety-related design criteria based on the Critical Design Aircraft, which is based on the fastest and widest aircraft that use a particular airport. The ARC is an alpha-numeric designation based on the aircraft’s approach speed (A, B, C, D, or E), and wingspan and tail height (I, II, III, IV, V or VI), whereby A-I aircraft are slower and smaller than E-VI.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 129 of 192

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
3 | Page

II. SUMMARY OF SCHEDULE

In order to ensure a thorough, transparent, and eﬃcient review of any proposal by the County for the expansion of the Airport, City staﬀ will endeavor to use its best eﬀorts to adhere to the following schedule for review of any expansion plan submitted in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6:

DAY 1: Notice of Filing and Completeness of Application to County

DAY 60: Issuance of Preliminary Staﬀ Analysis of Expansion Plan and Notice of Availability of Expansion Plan and Public Review Period*

DAY 75: End Public Review Period of Preliminary Staﬀ Analysis of Expansion

DAY 80: Hearing Date Set (to be held within 40 days)

DAY 110: Notice of Public Hearing

DAY 120: Target Public Hearing/Decision Date*

* The City intends to reach a decision on the Expansion Plan within 120 days after the Notice of Filing is provided to the County. While staﬀ will endeavor to adhere to this timeline, the failure to refer the Expansion Plan to the City Council within 120 days will not aﬀect the validity of the proceedings or City Council’s action. If the City Planner issues its Preliminary Staﬀ Analysis earlier than Day 60 or sets the hearing date earlier or later than 120 days, the date or subsequent events will change accordingly.

III. OUTLINE OF PROCEDURES

A. S
ubmission of the Expansion Plan

The County must submit the following materials in an Expansion Plan application:

1. The certiﬁed or adopted environmental clearance document;

2. Copy of the latest Airport Master Plan; and

3. Summary of the proposed acquisition of property and the role that property will play in the proposed Expansion Plan.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 130 of 192

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
4 | Page

No Expansion Plan application shall be accepted unless it is in the proper form and contains all required information. The City’s review of the Expansion Plan will not begin unless a duly ﬁled application has been accepted by the Planning Division. Submittals may be rejected if the submittal package is incomplete. In order to expedite review of the Expansion Plan documentation, the County is urged to consult with City staﬀ in advance of submission of an application to ensure that the submission will be deemed complete upon ﬁling; incomplete submissions will inevitably delay review.

B. N
otice of Filing and Completeness of Application to Airport Authority

After the City has determined that the information submitted by the County constitutes an adequate plan on which to base a review of an airport expansion or enlargement plan under PUC §21661.6, the City’s Planning Division will notify the County by letter that its application under PUC §21661.6 is complete and ready for processing. This Notice of Filing and Completeness of Application (“Notice of Filing”) will trigger the City’s review process and timeline. The Notice of Filing will include target dates for actions under these Procedures.

C. Su
bmission of Additional Information

The County is not required to submit any additional information regarding the Expansion Plan. However, if the County wants to submit any additional information for consideration by the City staﬀ in preparing its Preliminary Staﬀ Analysis of the Expansion Plan, the City will accept building speciﬁcations, plans detailing placement of buildings, sewer lines, water lines, etc., forecasts of aviation demand, analysis of airport capacity, environmental procedures and analysis, an access plan, a land use plan, a terminal area plan, development schedules and cost estimates, analysis of the impact of the Expansion Plan on aﬀected areas of the City, or any other information the County wishes to provide.

D. P
reliminary Review by City

Staﬀ review of the Expansion Plan will begin once the Notice of Filing of Application is provided to the County. Within 60 days, City staﬀ will prepare a Preliminary Staﬀ Analysis of the Expansion Plan (the "Preliminary Analysis"). The Preliminary Analysis has a 15-day public review period which is provided by the Notice of Availability of Expansion Plan and Public Review Period (“Notice of Availability”).

The Notice of Availability must be published as a display advertisement of at least one- eighth page in at least two newspapers of general circulation within the City; and will be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing. The Notice of Availability must also be posted Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 131 of 192

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
5 | Page

on the City’s Internet website or to another Internet website where other City notices are posted.

A copy of the Preliminary Analysis and Notice of Availability will be provided to the County.

A copy of the Preliminary Analysis will also be available for public review (and may be copied at the expense of any interested party) at:

Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008

E. P
reliminary Analysis Review Period and Opportunity to Supplement the Public Record

A 15-day period will be provided for interested parties to review the Preliminary Analysis before the City establishes the date for a public hearing. This 15-day review period will begin when the Preliminary Analysis is provided to the County. The County or any other interested party may submit written comments on the Preliminary Analysis and/or submit additional information regarding the proposed Expansion Plan during this period. Submission of any written comments and/or supplementary information will be voluntary only and will be included in the public record.

F. T
ime of Public Hearing

Within ﬁve days of the end of the 15-day period for review of the Preliminary Analysis, the City Planner will set the date on which the public hearing on the Expansion Plan will be held.

It is the City's intention to reach a decision on the Expansion Plan within 120 days after the Notice of Filing of Application is provided to the County. This timeline is discretionary, not mandatory, and the failure to refer the Expansion Plan to the City Council within 120 days does not aﬀect the validity of the proceedings or City Council’s action.

G. T
ime and Manner of Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Expansion Plan

Notice of the application for Expansion Plan approval pursuant to PUC §21661.6 shall be given pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 21.54.060.A.1 and

21.54.061.

All written comments submitted to the City Planner will become a part of the record of the hearing. A copy of all written comments will be available to the public (and may be copied at the expense of any interested party).

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 132 of 192

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
6 | Page

Hearing

The City Council will conduct the public hearing on the Expansion Plan in accordance with its standard procedures for public hearings contained in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.20 and any additional rules and regulations developed by the City Clerk.

1. Presentation/Summary of Expansion Plan. City staﬀ will present a summary of the Preliminary Analysis and any revision made as a result of comments or information received during the review period. This presentation will include a summary of the proposed acquisition of the subject property by the County and the role that property will play in the proposed Expansion Plan.

2. Summary of Communications. Written communications received or provided by the City regarding matters under consideration at the hearing will be summarized. A copy of all such communications will be entered into the record.

3. Opportunity for Interested Parties to be Heard. Both those interested parties who favor and those who oppose approval of the Expansion Plan will be heard.

Any written comments not previously submitted will be accepted and made a part of the record at that time. If the County requests, it will be given an opportunity to comment on both the Preliminary Analysis and any public comment. Such comment will be in addition to any written submission provided by the County.

4. Record of Hearing. A record of the hearing will be made and will include an audio/visual recording of the proceedings, a copy of the Expansion Plan, a copy of all written comments received prior to and during the hearing, and any other material necessary to provide a full, adequate administrative record of the proceeding.

IV. OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL

The Expansion Plan will be approved if the City Council ﬁnds that:

1. The Expansion Plan does not require the prior or concurrent approval of a conditional use permit, conditional use permit amendment, or zoning map or text change by the City.
2 2 Discretionary permits or approvals prescribed by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code may be required as a prerequisite for entitlement and must be obtained and secured prior to the approval of an Expansion Plan. If the details of the County’s request require the processing of discretionary permits, there are inherent risks associated with concurrent processing. A discretionary permit may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 133 of 192

Procedures to Implement PUC §21661.6
7 | Page

2. The advantages to the public of the proposed Expansion Plan outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and the environment. Environmental factors to be considered include noise, air pollution, and the burden on surrounding areas, including traﬃc.

3. Approval of the Expansion Plan is consistent with the objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to compatible uses. In determining whether these ﬁndings are justiﬁed, the City Council will consider any factors which it deems to be relevant, including the following:

A. Determination that appropriate public notice was provided.

B. T
he impacts and consequences of a ll phases of the Expansion Plan, including but not limited to land acquisition; project development; and the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft.

C. A ll signiﬁcant eﬀects of the proposed expansion, both direct and indirect, over the short term and long term, including the impact the project may have on road traﬃc, infrastructure needs, or other impacts associated with greater number of persons using the airport.

Nothing in this section will preclude the City Council from approving the Expansion Plan subject to conditions designed to ensure that the advantages to the public of the proposed Expansion Plan will outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and the environment. Such conditions may include mandatory amendments to the Expansion Plan, or the imposition of restrictions or limitations, to the extent not preempted by FAA, on the implementation of the Expansion Plan.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 134 of 192
Exhibit 5
City of Carlsbad
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments
GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-0003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008)

SECTION 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS

Amend the policy 2-P .39 of the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan to read as specified below, signified as replacements, additions, or revisions to existing text. Revisions to existing text are shown in order by section number, with strikeout typeface (i.e. strikeout) illustrating deletions and underline typeface (i.e. underline) illustrating new text.

A clean-copy of the proposed changes are provided as an attachment to the resolution included with the Nov. 19, 2024 City Council staff report.

2-P
.39 New and Expanded Airport Land Uses.

a. T he current Airport Reference Code for McClellan- Palomar Airport, defined in the FAA’s Airport Design Advisory Circular, is a B-II design classification. The city supports a B-II Enhanced Alternative McClellan-Palomar design classification, as set forth in the Airport Master Plan, so long as that classification does not require a runway extension. The city opposes any changes to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan that would increase the wingspan or approach speed design for the airfield (for example, a reclassification as D-III Modified Standards Compliance as described in the Airport Master Plan), or that would otherwise accommodate larger aircraft than currently in use at the airport.

c. P rohibit approval of any zone change, general plan amendment or other legislative action that authorizes expansion of McClellan-Palomar Airport, unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the Carlsbad electorate (Section 21.53.015, Carlsbad Municipal Code.) except in compliance with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6.

d. T he State Public Utilities Code definitions of “airport” and “airport expansion” shall apply to the terms contained in this element.

SECTION 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (TITLE 21)

Amend the various titles and sections of the Zoning Ordinance to read as specified below, signified as r
eplacements, additions, or revisions to existing text. Revisions to existing text are shown in order by section number, with strikeout typeface (i.e. strikeout) illustrating deletions and underline typeface (i.e. underline) illustrating new text.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 135 of 192

A clean-copy of the proposed changes are provided in the draft ordinance included with the Nov. 19, 2024 City Council staff report.

21.04.024 Airport

“Airport” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21013.

21.04.140.1 Expansion.

“Expansion” means to enlarge or increase the size of an existing structure or use including the physical si
ze of the property, building, parking and other improvements. In the context of airports, “airport expansion” has the same meaning set forth and defined by Public Utilities Code Section 21664.5. The acquisition of any real property interest which FAA requires to be depicted on the airport layout plan is included in this definition.

Section 21.07.020 Table A

Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

Section 21.29.030 Table A

Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

Section 21.30.010 Table A

Use P CUP Acc
Airports 3

Section 21.32.010 Table A

Use P CUP Acc
Airports (see note 3 below) 3

3. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 136 of 192

I I - I I

I I I I

Section 21.34.020 Table A

Use P CUP Acc
Air courier services (see note 1 below) X
Airlines offices, general offices (see note 1 below) X
Airports (see note 6 below) 3

6. Permitted by issuance of a conditional use permit by the city council and only within the boundary of McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on the zoning map of the city.

21.54.125 Amendments to development permits.

If an approved development permit was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.54.042 21.54.040 of this title, any amendment to said permit shall be acted on by the decision-making authority that approved the original permit, except that if the city council approved the original permit, the planning commission shall have the authority to act upon the amendment.

D. N otwithstanding subsections B and C, t he City Council shall retain the decision-making authority for amendments to development permits for new or expanded airport uses.

E. Amendments to approved development permits are reviewed under the city ordinances, policies, or standards in effect at the time of the amended permit application is filed and deemed complete or determined to be complete. In granting an amendment, the decision-making authority may impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 137 of 192
Exhibit 6
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 138 of 192

PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Oct. 16, 2024, 5 p.m.

Welcome to the Planning Commission Meeting
Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
carlsbadca.gov
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city's legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the Planning Commission and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website.

How to watch
In Person
City Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village
Online
Watch the livestream
at
Drive carlsbadca.gov/watch
How to participate
If you would like to provide comments to the Commission, please:
• Fill out a speaker request form, located in the foyer. • Submit the form to the Clerk before the item begins.
• When it's your turn, the Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium. • Speakers have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the chair) changes that time. • You may not give your time to another person, but can create a group. A group must select a single speaker as long as three other members of your group are present. All forms must be submitted to the City Clerk before the item begins and will only be accepted for items listed on the agenda (not for general public comment at the beginning of the meeting). Group representatives have 10 minutes unless that time is changed by the presiding officer or the Commission. • Visual materials, such as pictures, charts, maps or slides, are allowed for comments on agenda items, no~ general public comment. Please contact the Planning Division at 442-339-2600 or [email protected] to make arrangements in advance. All materials must be received by the Planning Division no later than 2pm the day of the meeting. The time spent presenting visual materials included in the maximum time limit provided to speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting are part of the public record. Please note that video presentations are not allowed.
• In writing: Email comments to [email protected]. 'Comments received by 2 p.m., the day of the meeting, will be shared with the Commission prior to the meeting. When e-mailing comments, please identify in the subject line the agenda item to which your comments relate. All comments received will be part of the official record.
• In writing: Email comments to [email protected]. Comments received by 2 p.m. the day of to the meeting will be shared with the Commission prior to the meeting. When e-mailing Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 139 of 192
Oct. 16, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 2 comments, please identify in the subject line the agenda item to which your comments relate. All comments received will be included as part of the official record.

Reasonable accommodations
Reasonable Accommodations Persons with a disability may request an agenda packet in appropriate alternative formats as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids will be provided to effectively allow participation in the meeting.

Please contact the City Manager's Office at 442-339-2821 (voice), 711 (free relay service for TTY users}, 760-720-9461 (fax) or [email protected] by noon on the Tuesday before the meeting to make arrangements. City staff will respond to requests by noon on Wednesday, the day of the meeting, and will seek to resolve requests before the start of the meeting in order to maximize accessibility.

CALL TO ORDER: 5 PM
ROLL CALL: Kamenjarin, Danna, Hubinger, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, Stine PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Commissioner Meenes
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. SDP 2023-0025 {DEV2023-0122)-GRAND HOPE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING -Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of Site Development Plan, SOP 2023-0025, to demolish an existing medical office building and construct a 10,671-square-foot, two story, 34-foot-tall, 3-tenant medical office building with private balconies, a 395-square-foot common egress balcony on the second floor and a one-story, 2,803-square-foot enclosed parking garage consisting of four parking spaces and two lift spaces (two parking spaces per lift) for a total of 8 spaces on a 0.16-acre property located at 2879 Hope Ave. in the northwest quadrant of the city, the Village & Barrio Master Plan, and Local Facilities Management Zone.

ACTION TYPE: Quasi-Judicial
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution.

PLANNER: Lauren Yzaguirre ENGINEER: David Rick
Chair Kamenjarin opened the duly noticed public hearing atS:05 p.m.

At Chair Kamenjarin' s request, Commissioners disclosed ex parte communications on this item.

Commissioner Hubinger explained that the applicant is his dentist, and that he disclosed to the applicant that he is on the planning commission; but no significant conversations beyond that.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 140 of 192
Oct. 16, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 3 Commissioners Merz, Meenes, Lafferty, Stine and Chair Merz disclosed they are familiar with the site and or have visited the site.

City Planner, Eric Lardy introduced Associate Planner, Lauren Yzaguirre, who reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the item. (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).

Applicant Representative, Kirk Moeller, from KM Architects responded to questions raised to staff by the Commission.
(Video 24:00}
In response to Commissioner Lafferty's questions about parking, Mr. Moeller explained some of the parking lot design challenges, financial and physical that his Company reviewed and added that underground parking is cost prohibitive so what is presented is what they found offers the most parking spaces. He added that the property owner plans to occupy one of the spaces and expects two other medical professional businesses to rent from him.

In response to Commissioner Lafferty's inquiry, Mr. Moeller opined the best way he would describe the style of architecture is Mid-Century/Art Deco Modern.

In response to Commissioner Lafferty's inquiry, Mr. Moeller explained that it was not possible to maintain the original site because it is too small for the Applicants business purpose.

In response to Commissioner Merz inquiry, Mr. Moeller explained that his Company reviewed all the parking options and pursued the standards modification that would maximize parking spaces available.

City Planner, Eric Lardy added that if the Applicant was amendable to it, the Commission could recommend a modification to reduce the current proposal of 8 Electric Vehicle (EV) parking spaces to the minimum requirement of 5 spaces and leave 3 spaces for other types of vehicles.

In response to Commissioner Hubinger's inquiry, City Planner, Eric Lardy indicated that the project should not be delayed by the Planning Commission recommending a parking modification.

In response to Commissioner Danna's inquiry, Mr. Moeller explained that the Applicant is adding as much solar as possible to the project.

In response to Commissioner Stine's inquiry, the Applicant indicated they are in favor of the modification of changing from 8 EV parking spaces to 5 EV parking spots and 3 for gas powered vehicles.

Chair Kamenjarin opened the public testimony at 5:40 p.m. and asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project.

MaryAnne Vinag expressed her support for the Project.

Hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Kamenjarin closed the public testimony at 5:44 p.m.

Commissioner discussion ensued.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 141 of 192
Oct. 16, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 4 Motion by Commissioner Stine, seconded by Commissioner Meenes, to adopt Resolution 7522 -5/2/0/0 (Kamenjarin, Lafferty-No).

Chair Kamenjarin closed the duly noticed public hearing at 5:59 p.m.

2. GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) -CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES -1) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a second addendum to a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as previously addended for: (1) amendments to the general plan, zoning ordinance, and local coastal program for new and expanded airport uses; and (2) procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is county acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport; and
2) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of amendments to the city's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify code requirements and permit review procedures for new and expanded airport land uses; and
3) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of city procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

ACTION TYPE: Legislative
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution(s).

PLANNER: Mike Strong ENGINEER: N/A
Chair Kamenjarin opened the duly noticed public hearing at 6PM. And requested exparte from commissioners for which there was none.

City Planner, Eric Lardy introduced Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Strong who reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the item. (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).

There was no ex-parte on from any Commissioner.

In response to Commissioner Stine's inquiry, Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Strong confirmed there is not a pending application from the County for an airport expansion and Mr.

Strong described the procedure should the County begin the process to do so.

In response to Commissioner Merz's inquiry, Mr. Strong explained that only the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), not the city or county has authority over the size and type of aircraft or frequency of flights in that airspace.

Mr. Strong clarified that the intent of the proposed code amendment requirements is to clarify, specify and establish procedures for existing laws governing airport expansion.

Chair Kamenjarin opened the public testimony at 6:23 p.m. and asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the project.

Vicki Syage and Lance Schulte expressed her support for the Project.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 142 of 192
Oct. 16, 2024 Carlsbad Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 5 Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports, County of San Diego, requested the Commission consider that the development of Palomar Airport is within the current authority of the Conditional Use Permit and federal pre-emption guidance from the FAA.

Dan Bentro, Frank Sung, MaryAnne Vi nag and Marie Marcinko expressed their support for the project.

Hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Kamenjarin closed the public testimony at 6:43 p.m.

In response to Commissioner Merz's inquiry, Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Strong referred to the correspondence in the Staff Report from the County of San Diego to explain the County's position on the matter.

Sr. City Attorney, Allegra Frost re-emphasized that federal law regulates various aspects of aviation and airspace management, and the ordinance is drafted so that nothing is intended to conflict with federal law.

In response to Commissioner Merz's inquiry, Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Strong, explained that the engineering materials applied surfaces (EMAS) are a land treatment device used to slow down airplanes on the runway thus reducing the speed of the landing aircrafts. Mr. Strong added, regarding the prior correspondence from 1993 from the City Attorney, that Commissioner Merz referred to, that the purpose of these code amendments and these procedures are to set the expectations in grey areas where something might be subject to interpretation.

Sr. Assistant City Attorney Allegra Frost clarified the correspondence Commissioner Merz is referring to is an advice memo from a prior city attorney in reference to interpreting a municipal code amendment that related to the city's voter initiative and whether or not a Conditional Use Permit amendment triggered a vote requirement of the people. Ms. Frost added that in that case, the city attorney at that time, Mr. Ball opined that a Conditional Use Permit was not a legislative enactment, so it would not require a vote under that municipal code section.

Commissioner discussion ensued.

Motion by Commissioner Meenes, seconded by Commissioner Lafferty, to adopt Resolution 7524 -6/1/0/0 (Merz-No).

Chair Kamenjarin closed the duly noticed public hearing at 7:06 p.m.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORT: None
CITY PLANNER REPORT: City Planner Eric Lardy explained there are currently 4 items on the agenda for the next meeting on Nov. 6, 2024 and a few more planned for Nov. 20, 2024.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT: None
ADJOURNMENT: 7:26 p.m.

Cynthia Vigeland
Administrative Secretary
From: Mike Strong
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: Fw: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024- 0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:13:18 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Hope Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 8:02:06 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Strong <[email protected]>; Jason Haber <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024- 0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR

EXPANDED AIRPORT USES
Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners,
Agenda item #2 referenced above is the result of action by Mayor Blackburn, at the request of Carlsbad citizens, to agendize unfinished work begun in 2019. We are grateful to our current City Council, who by unanimous vote, sent this item to staff. What you see in this item is staff's work, primarily completed by the extremely capable Mike Strong, Assistant Director of Community Development, who I know has called this a "beast" more than once. By weight of the document, it certainly is. An additional thank you goes to Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs, who has always had a patient ear to explain how the City works.

This is the culmination of work that can ensure the City of Carlsbad has "final authority on any airfield expansion plans", as was the intention of the Annexation Agreement between the City and the County in 1978, and the promise of retaining Local Control for future generations of Carlsbad residents.

I hope this Planning Commission sees fit to go on record tonight with its approval in support of this plan.

Most sincerely,
Hope Nelson,

Past President, Citizens for a Friendly Airport
Exhibit 7
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 143 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Cc: Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:09:45 AM
From: Dee Forsberg, Global Hire <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:37 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Palomar Airport
Hi,
I am a long-term resident of Carlsbad and am very concerned about Palomar Airport.

I am asking the Planning Commission to support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.

Thank you
Delinda (Dee) Forsberg
A full-cycle executive search firm focusing on recruiting mid-level to executive management professionals
[email protected] - (760) 214-7458
Licensed and Insured
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 144 of 192
[I]
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport -- please support the proposal by Carlsabd City Staff Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:38 AM
From: Alice <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:33 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar Airport -- please support the proposal by Carlsabd City Staff The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

PLEASE
support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 145 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Cc: Eric Lardy; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:15:36 AM
For Planning Commissioners
From: Beverly Marston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Palomar Airport
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission:

As a resident who is impacted by the airplane noise from Palomar Airport I am writing to urge you to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for this airport. Please support the proposal present by the Carlsbad city staff.

The noise level as it currently stands impacts our ability to hear others talking when we are outside or if windows are open.

Face to face conversations and phone
conversations have to stop. We cannot hear the TV if we are inside and a window is open. It is already impacting our quality of life, without the larger jets proposed by the County's agreement with American Airlines.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Beverly Marston
Evans Point Resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 146 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Airport operation/zoning
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:08:21 AM
Public comment
From: BOB Gilbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Airport operation/zoning
Planning com., PLEASE support the control that Carlsbad has over Palomar Airport planning. Thank You!! Robert Gilbert 68 yr resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 147 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Oct 16 Carlsbad Planning Commission mtg
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:14:17 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane K <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:08 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Oct 16 Carlsbad Planning Commission mtg
I am requesting the Commission to support the proposal to be presented by the Carlsbad city staff and supported y the C4FA organization.

Carlsbad Resident,
Diane Kimura.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 148 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: CRQ
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:07 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:55 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: CRQ
Please support the proposal by staff so we can maintain local control of OUR airport and prevent any unwarranted and unwanted expansion of the airport that would ruin the quality of life for all of us.

Don Burton
7450 Esfera St.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 149 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: PLEASE SUPPORT LOCAL CONTROL OF PALOMAR AIRPORT Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:11:24 AM
From: Frank Sung <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 9:54 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

PLEASE SUPPORT LOCAL CONTROL OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commissioners - Please support
local control of Palomar Airport .. especially regarding new and expanded airport use. Thank You!
GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE

REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR
EXPANDED AIRPORT USES – 1) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a second addendum to a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as previously addended for: (1) amendments to the general plan, zoning ordinance, and local coastal program for new and expanded airport uses; and (2) procedures for noticing, standards for review, and other matters where there is county acquisition of property beyond the current boundaries of the airport; and 2) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of amendments to the city’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to specify and clarify code requirements and permit review procedures for new and expanded airport land uses; and Oct. 16, 2024 Page 3 3) Adoption of a resolution recommending approval of city procedures to implement Public Utilities Code §21661.6.

ACTION TYPE: Legislative STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution(s). PLANNER: Mike Strong ENGINEER: N/A
Frank Sung, Mariners Point HOA Board Member
(m)
760-213-9036
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 150 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Airport plan
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:45 AM
From: Harve Meskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 8:21 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Airport plan
Please approve the proposal presented by the staff.

Harve Meskin
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 151 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Cc: Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Support City of Carlsbad Staff Report
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:11:06 AM
From: Jamie Bolane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 9:26 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Support City of Carlsbad Staff Report
Please support recommendations of the City of Carlsbad Staff Report regarding the restrictions on development of expansion of commercial jet services at Palomar Airport.

Some private jets have already taken illegal routes over our home.

Jamie Bolane
2298 Bryant Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
303-868-7748
[email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 152 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong; Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:09:19 AM
From: Janet Yaws <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 5:28 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Yaws <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar Airport
As a resident of Carlsbad, please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

Thank you,
Janet Yaws
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 153 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Palomar airport noise abatement
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:54 AM
From: Jerri Hatch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:03 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar airport noise abatement
Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff related to keeping our neighborhoods quiet and safe.

Thank you.

Jerri Hatch
Homeowner
92011
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 154 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:10:28 AM
From: Jim F <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 7:09 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar Airport
I live in Vista and I am against American Airlines expansion into Palomar Airport. I do support the proposal by the Carlsbad city staff and would like the Planning Commission to carefully consider the city staff's proposal.
thank you
Jim Fucillo
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 155 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:21 AM
Community Development Department
Michele Hardy
Planning Division Secretary
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA
92008
442-339-2609 direct | [email protected]
From: Judy White <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:18 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Airport
Please support the Carlsbad city recommendations to follow the present policy of not allowing larger commercial flights out of this local, small airport. It was always intended to be a local airport, not a commercial enterprise.

Judith White, Carlsbad citizen
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 156 of 192
. Cityof
Carlsbad
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:21:08 AM
From: Mark S <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:24 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Carlsbad Palomar Airport
I am a long-time Carlsbad resident who lives fairly close to the airport. As such, I have experienced (especially HEARD) the coming and (always) going of numerous airlines. Unfortunately, historically, airport rules and regulations, such as takeoff and landing times, have been made to be broken under current airport supervision.

Therefore, I urge all commission members to carefully review and adopt new policies and zoning restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport. That would be an important step in making the airport the good neighbor it should be but currently is not.

Thank you.

Mark Serepca
Plum Tree Road
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 157 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Cc: Mike Strong; Eric Lardy
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport Expansion
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:14:56 AM
For Planning Commissioners
From: Mary LeBlanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Palomar Airport Expansion
To the Planning Commission:

As the City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in
adopting new policies and zoning restrictions to
ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents
retain local control of all land use and
airport expansion approvals for Palomar
Airport,
the tens of thousands of Carlsbad
residents immediately affected implores the
Planning Commission to support the proposal
presented by Carlsbad city staff. We must do
more than just offer a vocal protest. We must
stand our ground.

The County is attempting to steam roll, via back
door measures, the expansion of our airport no
matter the negative effects in terms of the
health, safety and overall well being of Carlsbad
and neighboring residents. Negotiating a contract
with AA to use a plane too large for our airport is
a tragedy waiting to happen. Not imposing flight
path restrictions and flight hours restrictions is
abhorrent to the core.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 158 of 192
Please join the City of Vista and take on the
County in opposition of this heavy handed
mandate. We the citizens must maintain local
control.

Thank you in advance for standing with us.
--
Mary
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 159 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland; Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport -- support for City of Carlsbad & residents to retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:12:26 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 6:26 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar Airport -- support for City of Carlsbad & residents to retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals
Dear Sir/Ma’am:

Please consider supporting the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.

Kind regards.

Michael K. Harnett
Harnett Investment Advisers LLC
760.476.1468 Tel
760.476.9868 Fax
www.harnettadvisers.com
The information in this e-mail is intended solely for the recipient and is confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. While the information in this e-mail is deemed reliable, no guarantee is made with respect to its accuracy. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. This e-mail is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer or a solicitation to buy a security.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 160 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Cc: Mike Strong
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:19:09 AM
From: Rob Ehlen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Palomar Airport
Planning Commission - Please support the proposal presented by the Carlsbad city staff.

Thanks, Rob Ehlen
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 161 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Local Control of Palomar Airport
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:15:11 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Teri Juybari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:22 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Local Control of Palomar Airport
Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad City Staff.

It is crucial to the quality of life for the citizens of Carlsbad that the City retain control over the airport.

Thank

you,
Teri A. Juybari
2164 Dickinson Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 162 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Support for C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff Palomar Airport Proposal Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13:09 AM
From: Tom Frieder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:16 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Support for C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff Palomar Airport Proposal Good Morning-
As a resident of Carlsbad /Shorepointe area I support the C4FA and Carlsbad City Staff efforts to
ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

Thank you,
Tom Frieder
1183 Mariposa Rd
Carlsbad 92011
858-354-8664
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 163 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: 10/16/24 Meeting - Please support the Carlsbad City Staff Proposal RE Land use and airport expansion Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 2:32:42 PM
From: Scott Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 2:26 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Dom Betro <[email protected]>
Subject:
10/16/24 Meeting - Please support the Carlsbad City Staff Proposal RE Land use and airport expansion
Carlsbad Planning Commission on Wednesday, Oct 16th at 5:30pm at Carlsbad City Hall.

The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning restrictions
to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

Please support the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.

Thank you,
Scott Morgan - Carlsbad, Residence
6647 Thrasher Place
For More information:

Meeting details and a copy of the City's proposal may be found on our website at
c4fa.org/announcements.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 164 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: subject: Approval for City of Carlsbad
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:24:12 AM
From: Joanne Santana Montez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:07 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Joanne Santana Montez <[email protected]>
Subject: subject: Approval for City of Carlsbad
From: Cisco Santana- Montez
3535 Linda Vista dr. #60 San Marcos Ca 92078
(Rancho Vallecitos Mobile Estates) I am
sending this message regarding the approval from your commission for the City of Carlsbad to retain local control of all land use and airport expansion. As a representative of our Mobile Homepark,it is extremely important to us that the city of Carlsbad receive the approval in order to control the expansion of the Palomar Airport.

Our mobile homes are in direct line with the airport landing area, and they fly directly over our homes, at a lower altitude. It will be a terrible loud noise coming from their huge jet engines. also, these jet planes leave a black soot shot oui of their engines.that land on our homes,cars and our roads.

We are elderly residents, in our 70 's and 80"s and require peaceful conditions.We are requesting your approval so the city of Carlsbad can control this situation, not the County of San Diego. Thanks you for your help regarding this matter.

Sincerely.....Cisco
Santana-Montez
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 165 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES –
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:03:30 AM
From:

Beverly Kantowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:00 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES – DATE: October 16, 2024
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, City of Carlsbad, CA.
[email protected]
SUBJECT: GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS

AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES MESSAGE:

Dear Planning Commission Members,
Please act to protect the “Heart Health” of our community -- specifically its Quality of Life:

Please ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

We heartily request your support of the proposal presented by Carlsbad city staff.

Many Thanks.

David & Beverly Kantowitz,
6913 Blue Orchid Lane, Carlsbad CA 92011
[email protected]
Beverly Kantowitz
Email: [email protected]
cell: (760) 845 2220
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 166 of 192
From: Planning
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024-0021 (PUB2024- 0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR EXPANDED AIRPORT USES Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:25:20 AM
From: Hope Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 8:02 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Strong <[email protected]>; Jason Haber <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Meeting date 010/16/2024; Agenda Item #2 - GPA2024-0001/ZCA2024-003/LCPA2024- 0021 (PUB2024-0008) - CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR NEW OR

I hope this Planning Commission sees fit to go on record tonight with its approval in support of this plan.

Most sincerely,
Hope Nelson,

Past President, Citizens for a Friendly Airport
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 167 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Planning Commission
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:24:38 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:41 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlsbad Planning
I live in San Marcos and have noticed an increase in air traffic over my house.

Most noticeable is the
increase in jet traffic. I am in support of the proposal from Carlsbad city staff.

James
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmittal is a confidential communication or may otherwise be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and immediately delete this message and all its attachments, if any.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 168 of 192
From: Mike Strong
To: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Oct 16, 2024 Agenda Item #2 - Palomar Airport Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:13:07 AM
From:

Vickey Syage <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 9:08 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; Mike Strong <[email protected]> Subject:

Planning Commission Oct 16, 2024 Agenda Item #2 - Palomar Airport Please include in tonight’s Planning Commission Agenda Packet for Agenda Item #2 - Palomar Airport.

Please forward to each of the Planning Commissioners.

Thank you.

My name is Vickey Syage and I’m the current president of Citizens for a Friendly Airport, C4FA.

I ask that the Planning Commission to please accept the Staff recommendations and pass the Resolutions brought forth.

On behalf of C4FA, I’d like to thank the City Council for giving its unanimous bipartisan support to pursue this much needed project, and to Staff for the incredible body of work that you have in front of you – all 283 pages of it. This has been a well thought out, well vetted, Herculean effort.

Tonight is the culmination of 7 years of work, over $1 million in outside legal fees paid by the City of Carlsbad, and six figures spent by C4FA.

The City of Carlsbad was granted local control of land use at Palomar Airport by the County, as a condition of the 1978 Airport Annexation, an annexation that was initiated and pursued by County. As the 2021 Court’s ruling so clearly states, “the County voluntarily and intentionally relinquished its immunities with respect to the airport.”
There shouldn’t have been a need for our lawsuit against the County. In the early years, after the Airport’s Annexation, things worked as they should have. The County came to the City for its input and approval for land use changes at the Airport. Sometime in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s things changed. The County started to steam roll ahead, and quite honestly, the City simply let them.

The County maintained that the County owned, operated and controlled everything that happened at Palomar Airport, including land use. This isn’t just C4FA’s perspective. The City’s own outside Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 169 of 192
counsel, Kaplan Kirsh & Rockwell (KKR) was given the same false information, as demonstrated by a presentation given by Peter Kirsch at the May 7, 2019 City Council Meeting:
“County position:
· It is exempt from City ordinances
· Compliance with CUP is voluntary
· No waiver of its immunity”
It wasn’t KKR’s fault. The County provided the false information, and documents to prove otherwise were not made available. One public records request that I personally made to the County confirming Carlsbad’s local control based on annexation took the County over 2 years to correctly respond to, and the response came one month after the Court’s ruling.

The lack of record keeping and the withholding of information led to bad governance.

As KK&R
reported at that same 2019 meeting:
“A note about history:
⁃Past City, County actions (and inaction) could be criticized with benefit of hindsight ⁃City could have been more aggressive in the past
⁃ Our focus has been on what can be done now and in future” The culmination of these past actions led to an illegal 2018 McClellan Palomar Airport Master Plan Update, passed 3 weeks before the former D5 Supervisor termed out. C4FA did everything we possibly could to stop the approval of the plan. In the end, our last and only option was to litigate. We did, and we won. The Court ordered the 2018 Master Plan Update to be rescinded.

Tonight, we are asking you to take the next step, so the city, county, and residents never have to go through an ordeal such as this again.

Staff have created an instruction manual, a “recipe book” if you will, with instructions on how the City and County must proceed with land use changes to honor the Annexation agreement and abide by the Court’s ruling.

I respectfully ask you to please vote to accept all of Staff’s requested Resolutions to protect Carlsbad and its residents for generations to come.

Thank you.

Vickey Syage
C4FA President
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 170 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Expansion Palomar Airport: Support the City Staff"s Proposal Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:07:39 PM
From: Cynthia Trevino <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Haber <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manager Internet Email <[email protected]>
Subject:

Expansion Palomar Airport: Support the City Staff's Proposal The City of Carlsbad is taking the next step in adopting new policies and zoning restrictions to ensure the City of Carlsbad and its residents retain local control of all land use and airport expansion approvals for Palomar Airport.

Please support the City of Carlsbad’s staff proposal.

Cynthia Trevino
Voter, Carlsbad Homeowner, Taxpayer
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 171 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Airport
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:53:38 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Germann <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:53 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlsbad Airport
Hello, Please Vote NO on any re—development and or expansion of the Carlsbad Airport Thank You RobertGermann
SentHello from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 172 of 192
From: Planning
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland
Subject: FW: Carlsbad Airport
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:16:59 PM
From: Robert Germann <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:15 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject:

Carlsbad Airport
Hello, Please protect our community by taking measures, adopting rules, passing ordinances to control ANY changes to our LOCAL airport means LOCAL control. THE

SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ,
their "STRATEGIC PLAN", plans
and decides land use for and around the airport without citizens input. This is NOT in CARLSBAD's best interests.

Thank You
Robert Germann
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 173 of 192
From: Carla Flores
To: Mike Strong
Cc: Cynthia Vigeland; Planning
Subject: FW: Palomar airport proposal
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2024 7:51:35 AM
Hello Mike and Cynthia,
This email arrived in the planning inbox.

Best Regards,
Carla Flores
Community Development Department
Carla Flores
Senior Office Specialist
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA
92008
442-339-2626 Direct |
[email protected]
Telework full day Tuesdays and Thursdays 2:30-5 p.m.

Track 1
From: Patty Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsb
adca.gov>
Subject:

Palomar airport proposal
Carlsbad Planning Commission:

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission support the proposal for Palomar airport presented by the Carlsbad city staff.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 174 of 192
City of
Carlsbad
Thank you.

Randy & Patty Gray
425-346-8500
[email protected]
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 175 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 176 of 192
Mike Strong
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Vickey Syage <[email protected]>
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:56 PM
Mike Strong; Jason Haber
Subject:

Hope Nelson; Mary Anne Viney; Shirley Anderson; Gary Greening Fwd: Carlsbad Palomar Airport -KCRQ -Airline Service
2021-10-18 David Shinn Pilot AA letter to BOS.pdf; Blank 7.pages Attachments:

Hello Jason and Mike,
This letter was sent to Council and the City Manager.

I wanted to make sure you both received a copy of it as well.

David Shinn is a former military pilot, commercial airline pilot, and now flies a private jet (for hire) out of Palomar.

He raised these points at the last PAAC meeting and did not receive a response from County Staff.

It's an Apple Pages document. I'm attaching a PDF version as well in case you can not open Pages.

I've copied our 2 Carlsbad PAAC representatives as well-Shirley Anderson and Gary Greening.

Thank you.

Vickey Syage
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content i safe.

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Shinn <[email protected]>
Subject: Carlsbad Palomar Airport -KCRQ -Airline Service Date: October 18, 2024 at 8: 10:32 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Syage Vickey <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Shinn David <[email protected]>
For your consideration. I am,
Very Respectfully,
David M. Shinn
1 DAVID M. SHINN ____________________________________________________________ 4306 Horizon Drive (480) 231-7605
Carlsbad, CA 92008 [email protected]
San Diego Board of Supervisors
1600 Paciﬁc Highway
Fourth Floor, Room 402
San Diego, CA 92101
Attn: Terra Lawson-Remer, Jim Desmond
Subj: Carlsbad Palomar Airport - Commercial Airline Service Dear Supervisors -
I attended the PAAC meeting September 19th to learn of discussions regarding American Airlines commuter operations at KCRQ.

There were approximately 29 persons speaking, including myself, with the majority being against an airport expansion and a commercial jet service. A concern was the Embraer aircraft on the runway with a 0615 departure time during voluntary quiet hours. KCRQ has a PCN of 33 since it was built on a landﬁll with soft sub grade. I suspect there are also methane gas pipe vents. The staﬀ proposing the airport service expansion had no understanding of runway weight limits or classiﬁcations, or the E-175 PCN/ASN rating.

Is American Airlines (& their code-share commuter)
aware of runway weight or
classiﬁcations at Carlsbad/Palomar Airport?
* There may be other aircraft limitations including wingspan and footprint. * Airport operations don’t begin until 0700, and there may be OPSPEC limits on Part 121 operations departing VFR to pick up their IFR clearance. * Will there be Crash-Fire-Rescue considerations and adjustments for the 0615 takeoﬀ?
* Will American subsidize crash-ﬁre-rescue?
* Will American fund manned tower ops to support departure times on their terms?
* Will the FAA support a [mandatory] noise abatement departure procedure to mitigate noise complaints?
This expansion might end up like KSMO (Santa Monica) with a runway shortening to 3,500 feet due to signiﬁcant noise complaints, eliminating ALL jet traﬃc.

I believe the plan needs further review. I am,
Very Respectfully,
David M. Shinn
Cc: C4FA
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 177 of 192
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 178 of 192
Mike Strong
From: Ronald Byrd <[email protected]>
Monday, November 4, 2024 8:58 AM
Mike Strong
Sent:

To:

Cc: Carolyn Luna; [email protected]
Subject: FW: Palomar Airport Expansion [MASTER EMAIL]
Attachments:

Hi Mike,
Hazardous Materials Spill Report -24-4655.pdf; Emergency Landing Aug 17 2024 Capture.JPG; Barbara PEW comment 11-03-2024.JPG; Clearing the air_ UW Civil & Environmental Engineering.pdf; hudda-et-al-2014-emissions-from-an-international ai rport-i ncrease-pa rticle-num ber-concentrations-4-fold-at-10-km.pdf; M ov-U p Report.pdf
One of my colleagues at Palomar Estates West mobile home park suggested I reach out to you regarding the October 16, 2024 staff report titled "Code Requirements and Permit Review Procedures for New or Expanded Airport Land Uses." While I could eventually find this information online, I would appreciate any assistance you can provide to address our health concerns without having to sift through extensive documents.

It appears that the decision on the expansion has already been made. I am not challenging this decision, but I hope you can answer a few critical questions I have:

1. I have yet to find the Supplemental EIR. Is this document available online?

2. As the Lead Agency reviewing the Palomar Airport Expansion project, did the EIR include the heavily impacted Palomar Estates West mobile home park?

3. Although we are outside your jurisdiction, the project will negatively impact us, potentially causing serious health issues. When I mention premature death, I am thinking about my wife and myself, but I also believe it is a park-wide concern. I noticed numerous references to public health in the 383-page document. Do any of your studies specifically address seniors living near the airport?

4. Our CNEL noise levels are already high for a senior living community and are expected to exceed the City of Carlsbad regulations noted in Item #2 on page 379 of the 383-page document. When the airport is fully expanded, our community is expected to have one of the highest CNEL levels in all neighborhoods. Were any considerations made to address the underreporting of the FAA forecast model as shown in a Stanford study conducted on 200,000 aircraft? (Reference: "A large-scale validation study of aircraft noise modeling for airport arrivals" https://pubs.aip. org/asa/jasa/article/155/3/1928/3270390) As you move forward with the expansion plans, I hope our small community on the hill will not be overlooked. I am concerned that health issues may escalate to a crisis level. Additionally, like many of my neighbors, it is not economically feasible for us to relocate.

Thank you for your support on this sensitive matter.

Sincerely,
1 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 179 of 192
Ron
Byrd
From:

Ronald
Byrd
Sent:

Monday,
November
04,
2024
1:47
AM
To:

Otto,
John
<[email protected]>
Cc:

McDonald,
Hunter
<[email protected]>;
[email protected];
[email protected]
Subject:

FW:

Palomar
Airport
Expansion
Hi
John,
I wanted
to
provide
additional
information
regarding
the
fuel
spill
landing
incident
I mentioned
earlier.

The
Hazardous
Materials
Spill
Report
comes
from
a
State
agency,
and
the
screenshot
is
something
I saw
on
lnstagram.

While
I can't
verify
the
authenticity
of
the
news
report,
it
aligns
with
other
firsthand
accounts.

I've
also
included
a
random
comment
from
a
Palomar
Estates
West
(PEW)
resident
about
the
fuel
smell,
which
I
recently
mentioned
on
a
NextDoor
post
called
"Palomar
Airport
-
Why, Why,
Why?".

That
post
garnered
over
13k
views
in
the
first
48 hours,
with
many
comments
supporting
the
expansion.

The
opposition
mainly
comes
from
residents
of
PEW
and
nearby
communities.
https:/
/nextdoor.
com/p/cXXsNS5G69h5?utm
source=share&slp=&share
platform=
1 0&extras=MzM2MTUxN
D
c%3D&utm
campaign=1730710111646
Additionally,
I've
included
information
about
two
studies
on
aircraft
pollution
shared
by
a
concerned
NextDoor
member.

These
studies
might
be
useful
for
the
DWP
investigation
team,
especially
regarding
the
health
impacts
of
living
under
a
flight
path.

It
seems
we
are
in
a
high-risk
area,
which
could
explain
the
numerous
health
issues
and
complaints
about
soot
in
our
community.

This
graph
is
from
the
LAX
study
conducted
in
2014.

The
dark
area
midway
between
the
405
and
110
is
~4.5M
from
the
runway.

PEW
is
located
at
a
similar distance.
2 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 180 of 192
/ I
___
.,.._
____
.........._
.... -...,.
km
I
5 10
I
WI
\ \
ff
"". ~~--'-~._.,.,.i------;--,-----
I
-
Particle
Number
Concentration
Normal
Background
2 - 4 x
Normal
1 - 1
½
x Normal
■
4 - 6 x
Normal
1 ½ -
2 x
Normal
■
6 - 8 x
Normal
Please
let
me
know
if
you
need
more
information
or if
you'd
like
me
to
conduct
a
park-wide
survey.

Thanks, Ron
Byrd
From:

Ronald
Byrd
Sent:

Sunday,
November
03,
2024
3:10
PM
To:

Otto,
John
<[email protected]>
Subject:

RE:

Palomar
Airport
Expansion
Hi
John,
Thank
you
for
informing
me
about
the
DWP
investigation.

I hope
they
already
have
the
necessary
information
and
won't
need
a
lengthy
study
to
determine
if planes
cause
air
pollution.

Many
residents
in
Palomar
Estates
West
are
concerned
about
health
issues.

I also
found
a
2006
study
mentioned
by
then-city
council
member
Desmond,
highlighting
the
impact
of
airport
activity
on
our
park.

There
are
additional
comments
dating
back
to
1992
indicating
ongoing
concerns.

However,
recent
studies
have
removed
our
community
from
the
public
record,
as
the
FAA
prioritized
pilots
over
residents.

Given
the
history
and
my
skepticism
from
the
PAAC
meeting
in
September,
I have
little
confidence
that
working
with
the
government
will
resolve
anything.

The
airport
will
likely
expand,
planes
will
get
bigger,
and
3 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 181 of 192
landings
will
become
more
frequent.

For
us
older
residents
in
Palomar
Estates West,
this
means
increased
health
risks
and
potentially
premature
deaths.

Is
this
what
you
consider
progress?
Regarding
the
PMC
meeting,
do
you
recall
a
woman
from
PEW
making
a
public
comment
about
a
fuel
release?
It was
an
emotional
testimony.

I expected
someone
from
the
airport
to
investigate
her
claims.

My
journey
began
after
spending
an
afternoon
at
the
clubhouse
pool
with
my
wife
and
20 friends,
where
we
smelled
a
strong
odor
of
fuel
and
witnessed
frequent
flyovers.

I didn't
connect
this
to
the
fuel
incident
until
the
recent
Vista
meeting,
where
PMC
members
spoke.

I was
surprised
that
Director
Abbot,
who
was
present
at
the
PMC
meeting,
didn't
recall
any
recent
fuel
releases
despite
hearing
firsthand
testimony.

I hope
he
follows
through.

I've
found
information
that
might
be
useful,
indicating
a
fuel
release
incident
with
no
reports
from
the
airport,
just
technical
details
reported
to
a
state
hazmat
agency
from
a
private
citizen
and
an
lnstagram
message.

This
seemed
bizarre
until
I connected
the
smell
of
fuel
the
following
day
with
my
neighbor's
testimony.

A
few
weeks
after
the
PMC
meeting,
I experienced
burning
eyes
lasting
several
hours
and
later
a
slight
fuel
odor,
prompting
me
to
contact

SDAPCD,
who
directed
me
to
report
the
incident
to
the
FM
which
I did.

I hope
sharing
this
helps
you
understand
my
frustration.

Sincerely, Ron
Byrd
From:

Otto,
John
<[email protected]>
Sent:

Friday,
November
01,
2024
4:22
PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject:

Palomar
Airport
Expansion
Dear
Mr.

Byrd,
At
the
request
of
Supervisor
Desmond
and
Chief
Administrative
Officer
Ebony
Shelton,
Department
of
Public
Works
(DPW)
staff
will
review
your
concerns
regarding
emission
levels
from
jet
aircraft.

In
relation
to
this
review,
the aviation
industry
as
a
whole
continues
to
make
advancements
not
only
in
current
technologies
making
them
cleaner
and
more
efficient,
but
they
are
continuing
to
make
advancements
in
new
technologies
such
as
Electric
and
Hydrogen
aircraft.

The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
sets
emission
standards
and
provides
technical
support
for testing
and
standards
development.

The
EPA
also
works
with
the
FAA
to
ensure
that
the
effective
date
of
any
standard
allows
for
the
development
and
application
of
the
necessary
technology.

The
FAA
sets
and
administers
the
Certification
Requirements
for
aircraft
and
engines
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
new
and
existing
emissions
standards.

It's
important
to
note
that
emissions
from
aircraft
can
vary
based
on
aircraft
type
and
engine
technology,
flight
procedures
and
meteorological
conditions.

For
more
information
regarding
the
existing
legal
requirements
and
agency
policies
related
to
emissions
and
certification,
please
refer
to
the
Emis_sJons
Certification
Policv
and
Guidance
I Federal
Aviation
Administration
(faa.gov).

Additionally,
new
rule
making
that
has
taken
place
this
year,
and
which
can
be
found
in
the Federal
Register
h tt12s
:/lwww.
fede(a
lregisteLgov
/doc
um
ents/2024/02/16/2024:02
330/a
irplane-fuel-efficienc)"::certifica
tion,
is
working
to
reduce
Particulate
Matter
(PM)
emissions
in
the
coming
years.

This
action
is
part
of
the
U.S.

Aviation
Climate
Action
Plan
that
sets
out
to
achieve
net-zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
the
U.S.
aviation
sector
by
2050. Thank
you
for
your
time
on
this
matter
and
taking
interest
in
the
County
Airport
system.
4 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 182 of 192
Thank
you,
John
Otto,
Airport
Manager
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
2192
Palomar
Airport
Road
carfsbad,
CA.
92011
O:
760-966-3272
I C:
760-497-4933
Email:
[email protected]
Hello
Supervisor
Remer,
I am
reaching
out
per
recommendation
from
Supervisor
Desmond's
office.

I live
in
West
San
Marcos,
in
a
community
called
Palomar
Estates
West.

It's
a
senior
living
park.

There
are
three
at
this
location
with
1186
homes
total.

We
are
directly
under
the
flight
path
to
Palomar
Airport
and
are
the
closet
to
planes
and
most
impacted
area.

There
is
a
noise
monitor
at
space
#33,
but
there
are
no
pollution
monitors
between
here
and
the
airport
where
there
is
only
a
lead
sensor.

The
noise
is
bad
CENL
is
already
above
EPA
recommendations.

The
noise
impact
study
which
has
recently
been
shown
to
be
underestimated
by
3-10
dB
by
a
large
peer
reviewed
Stanford
study
will
exceed
60 dB
CNEL
once
the
expansion
is
complete.

It's
not
an
issue
for
FAA
standards
but
will
be
intolerable
for
seniors.

We
are
also
experiencing
high
levels
of
soot
accumulations.

Many
of
the
neighbors
are
complaining
about
the
presents
of
a
wet
dark
gooey
substance
that
resembles
poop.

The
poop
scenario
is
highly
unlikely.

However,
it
appears
we
are
getting
rained
on
by
big
jets
flying
at
low
altitudes.

The
altitude
issue
is
caused
by
the
FAA
NextGen
program.

It
was
designed
to
save
fuel
and
reduce
the
environmental
impacts
of
jet
aircraft.

So
far
from
what
I have
read,
it's
having
the
opposite
effect.

Many
cities
have
tried
to
stop
it
by
filing
lawsuits.
https://nextgenrelief.org/a-litigation-timeline/ Additionally, the
topography
here
is
extremely
unique
to
a
flat
ground
approach.

When
the
plans
fly
over
descending
over
our
location,
the
exhaust
fumes
are
blown
back
into
the
hillside
where
the
soot
remains
in
the
air
until
it lands
on
the
ground.

Furthermore,
I suspect there
is
flaw
in
the
GPS
guidance
system
that
causes
pilots
to
trust
their
engines
to
gain
altitude,
leaving
unburnt
fuel
in
their
wake.
5 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 183 of 192
We
are
also
a
disproportionately
impacted
community
due
to
the
NextGen
flight
paths.

Please
see
attached.

I am
concerned
for
me,
family,
friends,
and
neighbors.

There
are
thousands
of
elderly
people
living
here
that
will
develop
illnesses
from
the
extraordinary
high
level
of
aircraft
pollution.

Short
of
limiting
big
jet
activities
at
Palomar,
I think
a
possible
solution
would
be
to
raise
the
altitude,
however
that
suggesting
has
been
met
with
lots
of
negative
feedback
after
I suggested
it on
my
NextDoor
postings.

The
airport
issue
is
controversial
like
politics,
however
judging
by
the
comments
the
public
is
overwhelmingly
opposed
to
the
expansion
especially
people
living
near
me
who
are
feeling
the
effects
now.
6 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 184 of 192
I am
going
to
continue
to
sound
the
alert
in
hopes
we
can
get
a
sensible
resolution
and
will
take
to
next
level.

However,
I would
prefer
to
get
local
support,
e.g.
get
pollution
monitoring
installed
in
our
park
with
warning
signals
so
seniors
will
not
its
unhealthy
to
be
outside.

Is
there
anything
you
can
help
me
with?
Sincerely, Ron
Byrd
1930
West
San
Marcos
Blvd
#329
San
Marcos,
CA
92078
[email protected] 530-391-2817 From:

Ronald
Byrd
<[email protected]>
Sent:

Monday,
October
28,
2024
1:52
PM
To:

Desmond,
Jim
<[email protected]>
Cc:

McDonald,
Hunter
<[email protected]>
Subject:
[External]
RE:

Palomar
Airport
Expansion
Hi
Supervisor
Desmond,
Thank
you
for
your
quick
reply.

I've
been
discussing
the
airport
expansion
on
Nextooor
with
pilots
and
community
members.

This
topic
has
garnered
significant
attention,
with
these
posts
often
reaching
4k-5k
residents
within
48 hours.

While
I usually
write
about
my
wife's
gardening
and
mosaic
work,
my
recent
airport
posts
have
been
the
most
viewed.

My
latest
post,
questioning
the
substance
sprayed
from
a jet
during
a
flyover
at
Palomar,
received
unwarranted
negative
feedback.

However,
it
helped
me
identify
a
potential
cause
for
the
increased
soot
accumulation,
ruling
out
waste
tank
dumping.

This
is
a
link
to
my
post
on
Nextooor:
https://nextdoor.com/news
feed/?post=365885171
In
the
video,
a
large
jet
emitted
a
brown
substance
that
appeared
black
on
camera.

Many
suggested
it was
engine
exhaust,
which
seems
likely.

However,
I wonder
why
a
plane
descending
on
a
smooth
continuous
arc
with
engines
idling
would
suddenly
emit
partially
burnt
fuel.

Some
residents
reported
seeing
similar
smoke
puffs
from
other
aircraft,
and
another
mentioned
possible
hearing
mechanical
trouble
causing
the
plane
to
backfire.

It's
unclear
whether
this
is
a
common
occurrence
or
possibly
due
to
our
unique
topography.

Could
GPS
inaccuracies
cause
pilots
to
make
sudden
altitude
changes,
leading
to
a
floored
throttle
response
increasing
wet
soot
accumulations
in
our
community?
I look
forward
to
Hunter's
response.

Sincerely, Ron
Byrd
From:

Ronald
Byrd
<[email protected]>
Sent:

Saturday,
October
26,
2024
8:51
AM
7 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 185 of 192
To:

Desmond,
Jim
<[email protected]>
Subject:
[External]
Palomar
Airport
Expansion
Dear
Supervisor
Desmond,
I hope
this
message
finds
you
in
good
spirits.

I am
writing
to
express
my
concerns
regarding
the
County's
planning
for
the
upcoming
expansion
at
Palomar
airport.

While
I am
generally
supportive
of
growth
and
the
airport,
I have
become
disillusioned
with
the
process.

A
year
ago,
I began
noticing
black
particulate
accumulation
around
my
home
in
Palomar
Estates
West.

Having
moved
here
in
2012
and
again
in
2019,
my
wife
and
I have
enjoyed
living
in
this
vibrant
senior
community.

However,
my
primary
concern
is
the
quality
of
life
for
my
family,
friends,
and
neighbors,
as
well
as
all
residents
in
the
North
County
area.

My
wife
spends
a
lot
of
time
outdoors,
including
at
the
community
pool.

One
afternoon
in
Aug,
I observed
about
20 planes
flying
overhead
within
an
hour,
accompanied
by
a
strong
odor
of
fuel.

This
led
me
to
investigate
further,
and
I discovered
that
there
are
no
emission
controls
on
the
airplanes.

Furthermore,
the
county
does
not
monitor
aircraft
pollution
and
is
nonresponsive
to
request
to
investigate
eyes
that
are
burning
when
aircraft activity
is
suspected.

While
the
noise
has
not
been
a
major
issue
for
me,
the
frequency
and
size
of
the
planes
have
become
increasingly
disruptive.

Research
indicates
that
aircraft
pollution
can
cause
various
health
issues,
including
respiratory
illness,
cardiovascular
disease,
dementia,
Alzheimer's,
and
cancer.

The
elderly
population
is
particularly
vulnerable
to
these
effects.

I have
noticed
a
sharp
increase
in
illnesses
among
my
community
members,
including
asthma,
COPD,
dementia,
and
hypertension.

I suspect
the
increased
aircraft
pollution
may
be
a
contributing
factor.

Two
main
issues
contribute
to
both
noise
and
black
carbon
pollution:
the
low
flying
altitude
of
the
aircraft.

Records
show
the
glide
scope
signal
is
set
at

3.20 degrees,
resulting
in
a
low
angle
of
approach.

Additionally,
the
unique
topography
in
our
area
creates
a
sediment
trap
and
extended
low
level
flyover,
amplifying
both
noise
and
particulate
concentrations
in
our community.

This
situation
is
concerning,
especially
as
aircraft
activity
is
expected
to
increase.

I believe
raising
the
altitude
of
the
planes
or
adjusting
the
flight
pattern
could
help
mitigate
these
issues.

However,
the
FAA
has
been
resistant
to
such
changes
in
the
past.

This
leaves
few
other
options,
such
as
reducing
air
traffic
or
using
personal
protection
equipment.

Additionally,
I am
contacting
you
regarding
the
PAAC.

I attended
the
meeting
in
September
for
my
first
time.

Many
people
from
my
community
were
upset
about
being
excluded
from
the
planning
process
and
gave
testimonies
about
their
experience
with
aircraft
activities.

The
PAAC
did
not
handle
the
increase
in
public
participation
well,
and
there
were
instances
of
bullying
other
committee
members
to
secure
votes.

Likewise,
the
San
Marcos
representative
on
the
committee
is
a
retired
air
traffic
controller,
which
raises
concerns
about
transparency.

I also
have
concerns
about
the
2021
Mater
Plan
PEIR
environmental
impact
study
and
the
absent
of
an
evaluation
of
health
risk
on
residents
impacted
by
the
amplified
aircraft
activities.

Last
night,
I attended
a
City
of
Vista
council
meeting
where
they
voted
in
favor
of
a
resolution
asking
the
county
not
to
accept
the
AA
contract.

The
PAAC
representatives
present
did
not
inspire
confidence,
and
their
responses
to
questions
about
air
pollution
monitoring
and
safety
were
inadequate.

Is
there
anything
you
can
do
to
help
us
as
a
community
address
this
problem?
The
issues
at
Palomar
Estates
West
are
documented
in
previous
studies
and
have
been
ignored
for
decades.

We
deserve
a
quality
of
life
that
is
considerate
of
senior
living.

Anything
you
can
recommend
that
would
help
us
get
support
on
this
important
issue
would
be
appreciated.

Sincerely, Ron
Byrd
8 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 186 of 192
1930
West
San
Marcos
Blvd
#329
San
Marcos,
CA
92078
[email protected] CAUTION:

Do
not
open
attachments
or
click
on
links
unless
you
recognize
the
sender
and
know
the
content
i
safe.
9 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 187 of 192
Mike
Strong
From: Sent: To: Subject:
sander1575
<[email protected]>
Tuesday,
November
12,
2024
8:55
AM
Aguilar,
Yadira;
Otto,
John;
Abbott,
Jamie;
Mike
Strong;
Jason
Haber
RE:

November
2024
Draft
agenda
Thank
you
for
the
notification.

I will
be
attending
the
November
PAAC
meeting.

I have
made
this
request
in
the
past
and
for
a few
months
it was
honored,
on
the
agenda,
what
specific
topics
would
be
covered
by
Jamie
Abbott
and
John
Otto.

In
the
interest
of
transparency
for
the
public,
especially
for
those
to
place
speaker
slips
on
certain
topics,
it would
be
nice
to
know
what
will
be
covered
under
staff
reports.

One
item
I would
like
to
have
clarified
is
the
current
FAA,
Grant
Assurances
(obligations)
for
Palomar
Airport.

This
issue
keeps
being
discussed
at
Vista
Council
meeting
and
Carlsbad
Chamber
Government
Affairs.

I have
done
a Google search
and
have
been
unable
to
find
any
current
Grant
Obligations
specific
to
Palomar
Airport.

Also,
please
Provide
an
update
on
the
FAA,
Part
139,
Commerical
Service,

INACTIVE
status
for
Palomar
Airport.

On
November
6,
2024,
McClellan-Palomar
is
still
classified
as
INACTIVE.

I thought
the
last
FAA
inspection
to
remedy
this
was
on
September
4,
2024.

Regards,
Shirley
Anderson
Sent
from
my
Verizon,
Samsung
Galaxy
smartphone
--------
Original
message--------
From:
"Aguilar,
Yadira"
<[email protected]>
Date:
11/12/24
8:19
AM
(GMT-08:00)
To: Subject:

November
2024
Draft
agenda
Hello
PAAC
members
Good
morning,
If
you
have
agenda
items
for
this
upcoming
November
PAAC
meeting
please
submit
them
by
Noon
Wednesday
November
13,
2024.
1 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 188 of 192
Thank
you,
Yadira
Aguilar
Admin
Sec
11 McClellan-Palomar
Airport
I County
of
San
Diego
2192
Palomar
Airport
Road,
Carlsbad,
CA
92011
Phone:
760-966-3281
I Mail
Stop
N137
CAUTION:

Do
not
open
attachments
or
click
on
links
unless
you
recognize
the
sender
and
know
the
content
i
safe.
2 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 189 of 192
11/13/24
, 3:49
PM
Vista
City
Council
Resolution
2024
-Opposition
to
Commercial
Flights
from
Palomar
-Mike
Strong
-Outlook
•
Outlook
Vista
City
Council
Resolution
2024
-Opposition
to
Commercial
Flights
from
Palomar
From
Vickey
Syage
<[email protected]>
Date
Wed
11/13/2024
7:53
AM
To
Mike
Strong
< Mike
.Strong@carlsbadca
.gov
>
Cc
Hope
Nelson
<[email protected]
>;
Mary
Anne
Viney
<maryanneviney@dslextreme
.com
>;
Shirley
Anderson
<[email protected]>
@
1 attachment
(3
MB)
2024-10-2022
Vista
Resolution
2024
Opposing
AA
et
al
at
Palomar
.pdf
;
Hi
Mike,
Here's
the
signed
Vista
Resolution
we
discussed
on
our
last
call.

Thank
you.

Vickey
Syage
CAUTION:

Do
not
open
attachments
or
click
on
links
unless
you
recognize
the
sender
and
know
the
content
is
safe.
about:
blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane
1 1/1
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 190 of 192

AGENDA REPORT
~
CITY

COUNCIL
0 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

COMMISSION
0 SUCCESSOR
AGENCY
0 BUENA

SANITATION

DISTRICT
0 JOINT POWERS

FINANCING

AUTHORITY
Item
No:

D5
Department:

City
Manager
-~-----------
-
-
---------
Prepared
by:

Imelda
M
. Huerta,
Assistant
City
Manager
Meeting
Date:

October
22,
2024
Approved
by:

John
Conley
, City
Manager
Agenda
Location:

Discussion
-----
-
---
SUBJECT:

COMMERCIAL

FLIGHTS
AT

MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR

AIRPORT
-OPPOSING
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss
proposed
City
Council
Resolution
No.
2024-
, opposing
the
acceptance
of
any
commercia
l flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Airport,
and
provide
direction
to
staff
.

PRIOR
ACTION:

None
.

STATEMENT
ON
THE
SUBJECT:

Councilmember
O'Donnell
requested
the
City
Manager
place
an
item
on
an
upcoming
agenda
to
discuss
a
Resolution
opposing
commercial
flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan
Palomar
Airport.

Commercial
ai
rline
service
through
American
Airlines
is
scheduled
to
return
to
McClellan
Palomar
Airport
in
February
2025.

This
commercial
service
will
have
at
least
two
daily
commercial
flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
to
Phoenix
.

The
Palomar
Airport
Advisory
Committee
(PAAC)
approved
this
item
on
September
19,
2024
(with
a
vote
of
5-4)
and
it
is
scheduled
to
go
before
the
San
Diego
County
Board
of
Supervisors
for
final
consideration
on
December
11,
2024.

FISCAL
IMPACT:

No
direct
fiscal
impact
with
this
recommendation.

EXHIBITS: 1.

City
Council
Resolution
No.
2024-
, opposing
the
acceptance
of
any
commercial
flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Ai
rport
ACTION:

Discussed
opposition
to
commercial
flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
and
adopted
City
Council
Resolution
No.
2024-174.

Vote:
3-1-0
(Franklin
Opposed,
Melendez
Absent)
~l~
Clerk/Se
'cretary
Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 191 of 192

RESOLUTION
NO.
2024-
A

RESOLUTION
OF
THE
CITY

COUNCIL
OF
THE

CHARTERED
CITY
OF
VISTA,

CALIFORNIA,

OPPOSING
THE

ACCEPTANCE
OF
ANY

COMMERICAL

FLIGHTS
IN
AND
OUT
OF

MCCLELLAN-PALOMAR

AIRPORT
The
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Vista
does
resolve
as
follows:

1. Findings.

The
City Council
hereby
finds
and
declares
the
following:

A
No
commercial
flights
currently
operate
out
of
the
McClellan-Palomar
Airport.

Commercial
airline
service
through
American
Airlines
is
scheduled
to
return
to
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
in
February
2025.

This
commercial
service
will
have
at
least
two
daily
commercial
flights
in
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Airport.

Commercial
flights
will
depart
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
as
early
as
6:15
a.m.
on
a
daily
basis.

This
would
be
a
direct
violation
of
the
current
Voluntary
Noise
Abatement
Plan
(VNAP)
period.

Per
VNAP,
no
jets
may
depart
between
the
hours
of
10 p.m.
to
7 a.m.

Moreover,
that
departing
6:
15 a.m.
aircraft
presumably
would
need
to
arrive
into
McClellan
Palomar
Airport
the
evening
prior
to
departure
which
would
particularly
impacting
the
residents
of
the
City
of
Vista,
as
the
City
of
Vista
lies
directly
beneath
the
landing
approach
for
arriving
aircraft
landing
at
McClellan-Palomar
Airport.

The
San
Diego
County
Board
of
Supervisors'
approval
of
a
commercial
flight
contract
with
American
Airlines
would
be
in
direct
opposition
to
the
County-owned
McClellan
Palomar
Airport
Voluntary
Noise
Abatement
Plan
(VNAP).

American
Airlines
would
presumably
use
the
Embraer
E-175
or
similar
size
jet
for
service
into
and
out
of
McClellan-Palomar
Airport.

The
Embraer
E-175
holds
76 passengers.

As
this
jet
is
substantially
larger
than
the
aircraft
currently
using
the
airport,
four
tie-downs
at
the
airport
will
be
removed
to
make
room
for
the
E-175,
indicating
the
need
for
more
space
to
facilitate
the
E-175.

The
Embraer
E-175
Design
Group
Classification
is
C-11I
(wingspan
between
79 feet
and
118
feet)
and
the
runway
at
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
is
designed
for
B-11
Design
Group
Classification
aircraft
(wingspan
between
49 feet
and
79 feet.)
G.

The
stated
takeoff
field
length
needed
for
the
Embraer
E-175
at
medium
take-off
weight
is
5,656
feet.

The
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
runway
length
is
currently 4,897
feet,
or
759
too
short. H.

While
private
aircraft
have
been
using
this
airport with
larger
planes
(C-11I
and
D-
Iii)
at
pilot
discretion
and
against
FAA
recommendations,
the
County
allowing
American
Airlines
to
use
Embraer
E-175
or
similar
size
aircraft
overlooks
certain
safety
standards
put
in
place
by
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration
("FAA")
designed
to
protect
the
public.

At
the
same
time,
the
County would
be
also
be
creating
their
own
safety
issue,
providing
a
de
facto
reason
for
the
County
to
justify
airport
runway
expansion
to
meet
the
FAA
criteria
of
a
C-11I
airport.
00029213
7 10/22/2024

EXHIBIT
1 05
2 of
3 Nov. 19, 2024
Item #9 Page 192 of 192

RESOLUTION
NO.
2024-
CITY

COUNCIL
OF
THE

CHARTERED
CITY
OF
VISTA
PAGE2 2.

Action. A
The
Vista
City
Council
opposes
any
commercial
flights
into
and
out
of
McClellan-
Palomar
Airport
and
implores
the
San
Diego
County
Board
of
Supervisors
to
1)
support
City
of
Vista
residents
and
the
City
of
Vista
and
surrounding
communities
by
declining
to
sign
any
commercial
flight
contracts;
2)
request
that
the
San
Diego
County
Board
of
Supervisors
affirmatively
show
support
of
its
existing
VNAP
policy;
and
3)
have
the
San
Diego
County
Board
of
Supervisors
affirm
its
stated
goal
to
reduce
GHG
emissions
to
zero
by
2035,
by
retaining
the
current
smaller
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
runway,
designed
to
safely
facilitate
B-11
aircraft,
as
it
is
today.

Adoption.

PASSED
AND

ADOPTED
at
a
meeting
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Vista
held
on
October
22,
2024,
by
the
following
vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN:

JOHN
B.

FRANKLIN,
MAYOR

APPROVED
AS
TO
FORM:

ATTEST:

WALTER
CHUNG,
CITY

ATTORNEY
KATHY

VALDEZ,
CITY
CLERK
By:____________
By:
___________
_
00029213
?Resolution
Opposing
Commerical
Flights
at
McClellan
Palomar
Airpor.docx
4894-7048-2925,
v.
1 10/22/2024
05 3
of
3 1
Code Requirements and Permit Review
Procedures for New or Expanded Airports.

Mike Strong, Asst. Director Community Development
Allegra Frost, Senior Asst. City Attorney
Nov. 19, 2024
ITEM 9
2 Background
• The city received a letter from Citizens for a Friendly Airport’s counsel requesting the code amendment process be
reinitiated.
• City Council directed staff to proceed with preparing the amendments for City Council consideration and approval.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
3 Proposed Amendments to the General
Plan
• Specify as a policy statement city opposition to any changes to the Palomar Airport that would increase the impact that the Palomar Airport has on neighboring communities and on city resources beyond the B-II Enhanced Alternative airport reference code. • Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
• Require new or expanded airport land uses to obtain a new or amended conditional use permit.
• Permit airport development only within the current boundary of Palomar Airport.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
4 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning
Code
• Incorporate state law definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion.”
• Permit airport land uses only by issuance of a new or amended Conditional Use Permit.
• Amend the zoning tables to remove airport as a permissible land use, so that only the property within the current boundary of Palomar Airport, as depicted in the city Zoning Map, would remain as conditionally permissible for airport land uses.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
5 Proposed Amendments to the LCP
• Implementation Plan – the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments for those areas within or impacting areas of the Coastal Zone.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
6 Proposed Procedures to Implement
PUC
• The procedures are designed to provide an expeditious review of county applications for approval of plans to acquire property as required by Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6, while ensuring that all interested parties are given a full and fair opportunity to present their views on such applications.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
7 CEQA Clearance
• A supplemental environmental impact report was
certified for the Housing Element Implementation and
Public Safety Element Update.
• Second Addendum has been prepared.
• No further analysis or environmental documentation is required.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
8 Planning Commission
Recommendation
• The Planning Commission voted 6/1 in support of the
project
ITEM 9 – Code Amendments
9 Recommendation
• Adoption of a series of action to approve the project.

ITEM 9 – Code Amendments

Carlsbad City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Carlsbad City Council
November 19, 2024