The mystery continues.
When recently withdrawing Carlsbad’s August 2012 letter concerns to the FAA consultant related to proposed increases in Palomar air traffic, the Carlsbad City Manager made a policy decision. His withdrawal letter stated that the general aviation basic transport limit in Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 was “defunct.”
As noted last week, I asked Carlsbad to produce the authorization for the City Manager to send the withdrawal letter. Why the request? As noted last week, the Carlsbad City Charter and Municipal Code suggest that the City Council but not the City Manager could authorize the policy decision letter.
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Carlsbad produced emails among the City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, and the City Manager but none involving the Council. By email, I have again asked Carlsbad to produce any documents explaining where the City Manager got the authority to send his letter.
Questions Raised by the April 23, 2013 City Manager CUP Letter
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
A month ago, I sent the following email to Carlsbad:
“Last week you forwarded to me the Carlsbad letter to Mr. Buntz [FAA consultant] related to CPA and Carlsbad CUP 172. The letter suggested that General Aviation Basic Transport services do not reference aircraft weight or other limitations. …
Please note that Carlsbad previously produced a document from its files - contemporary to Carlsbad's adoption of CUP 172 - that states:
‘A basic transport airport is one that can accommodate propeller or turbine-powered airplanes up to 60,000 lb gross weight. This type of airport is planned for use by ‘business jets, corporate jets, and executive jets.’ The document is apparently an excerpt from a book related to Planning and Design of Airports. The document references the source of the categories discussed as the FAA geometric design standards.
It appears the Carlsbad recent letter does not fairly summarize the facts relevant to interpreting CUP 172. If Carlsbad had scheduled the CUP 172 item for City Council discussion as a public agenda item, I could have pointed out this fact and others contrary to both the County and Carlsbad interpretation. Recall that I twice requested in writing that the CUP 172 item be placed on the public agenda.”
I Love Lucy and I’d Like to Love Carlsbad
In the classic TV series, I Love Lucy, Lucy at times put herself in a predicament causing her husband Ricky to say: “Lucy, you have some explaining to do.”
Carlsbad, you have some explaining to do. No doubt, Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 [CUP] could have been drafted better. As the County points out, CUP Condition 1 seemingly grants the County the unrestricted right to operate “commercial aircraft, scheduled and nonscheduled.” [See CUP Table 1.]
But Condition 1 also makes the County subject to Conditions 8 and 11. Condition 8 requires a CUP amendment for airport expansions. Condition 11 requires a CUP amendment if the Palomar airport classification changes from that of a “general aviation basic transport” airport.
The Carlsbad City Manager April 23, 2013 CUP withdrawal letter to the FAA consultant said:
“The designation of the airport in CUP 172 Condition Number (11) does not specifically restrict the General Aviation Basic Transport airline service with respect to the weight, seat number, or other similar limitations on air carrier activities. That CUP terminology is now defunct … .”,
We know the City Manager statement is not consistent with Carlsbad’s own files. When Carlsbad staff drafted the CUP, the staff relied on a document suggesting a 60,000 lb gross weight limitation.
More importantly, take your time machine back to 1979. Visit the Carlsbad council chambers when CUP 172 was adopted. The CUP adoption resulted in part from a Carlsbad voter initiative that objected to Palomar Airport expansion.
Can you picture the 1979 Carlsbad Council or City Manager telling the initiative-driven voters that CUP 172 allowed the County to unrestrictedly increase the size of planes and number of passengers using Palomar? Can you picture city officials telling the voters that the Condition 11 general aviation basic transport limitation was “defunct” on the day the CUP was adopted? DOA? Dead on arrival?
The perfect place for Carlsbad to explain itself would be at a 2013 Council meeting. Especially since Carlsbad and the County will soon be fighting over whether a County extension of the Palomar runway from 4900 feet to 6000 feet constitutes an airport expansion requiring amendment of CUP 172.
