Palomar Airport: Part F: Carlsbad: Who is in Charge? Blog #40

Should We Believe 2004 Carlsbad or 2013 Carlsbad?

In November 2004, the County wanted to expand Palomar Airport outside its boundaries by relocating airport parking to three new lots off airport property.  Carlsbad allowed the County to do this without seeking voter approval.  The 2004 Carlsbad report to the planning commission discussed Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172 and said:

“… [T]he CUP [172] also regulated the designation of the airport, thus limiting the type of aircraft allowed under the CUP.  Condition No. 11 of Planning Commission Resolution 1699 states that the ‘existing designation of the airport as a General Aviation Basic Transport Airport shall not change unless an amendment to this CUP is approved by the Planning Commission.’  The designation of General Aviation Basic Transport airport includes two classes of aircraft.  General aviation refers to all types of aircraft other than certified air carries and military aircraft.  These aircraft could be used for personal use, instructional use, business transportation (such as executive airplanes), and commercial purposes (such as aerial photography, advertising, or emergency medical transportation.)  Basic transport refers to commuter or air carrier aircraft that seat up to 30 people, excluding the pilot.”

In contrast, the April 23, 2013 Carlsbad City Manager letter to John Buntz [the FAA- supervised consultant for California Pacific Airlines] said:

“Table 1 of CUP 172(11) allows Commercial Aviation Activities, including (11) Airlines, scheduled and non-scheduled.  The designation of the airport in CUP 172 condition Number (11) does not specifically restrict the General Aviation Basic Transport Airport airline service with respect to the weight, seat number, or other similar limitations on air carrier activities.  That CUP terminology is now defunct … .”

Should we believe 2004 Carlsbad or 2013 Carlsbad?

Should We Believe 1979 and 2004 County or 2013 County?

Recall that in 2004 when the above-noted Carlsbad report was prepared, the County could have objected to the Carlsbad definition of “General Aviation Basic Transport” airport.  It didn’t.

Moreover, the County filed its application for the Carlsbad CUP on December 3, 1979.  Attached to the application were 2-pages of Land Uses for Palomar.   Use b.11 noted the County’s intent to use Palomar for commuter airlines.

Commuter airlines have scheduled and unscheduled flights to nearby destinations.  They don’t fly to China.

The Carlsbad Council Should Have Held a Public Hearing to Discuss the County’s Compliance with CUP 172 at Palomar Airport

Carlsbad Charter Section 200 tells us that the City Council, not City Manager [CM], makes City policy.  Carlsbad Charter Section 300 says that both the City Council and the voters are to exercise maximum control over land use decisions in Carlsbad. 

Yet the CM, without any input from voters, declared that the general aviation basic transport language in CUP 172 Condition 11 was “defunct.”

For reasons noted above, the CM was ill-informed.  [See also Blog #37.]   If the Council had held a public hearing to discuss CUP 172, the public could have pointed out that the information above conflicts with the information in the CMs April 23, 2013 letter related to the California Pacific Airlines’ environmental assessment.

Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.42.070 tells us that the City Council, not CM, decides whether to grant major conditional use permits such as CUP 172 granted to the County to operate Palomar Airport.  Municipal Code § 21.42.120 grants the City Council, not the CM, continuing jurisdiction to revoke major CUPs. 

Carlsbad Municipal Code §2.12.035(j) authorizes the CM to investigate complaints including my complaint by letters dated 1/12/13 and 2/12/13 that the County needed to seek an amendment to CUP 172 for Palomar expanded uses.  

But Municipal Code §2.12.035(j) does not authorize the CM to resolve such a dispute.  As noted above, other code sections authorize the City Council to police County CUP compliance.

The City Council owes citizens affected by Palomar operations an explanation of what laws the City will and will not enforce related to Palomar operations.  The issue is especially crucial now because the County has just completed its Palomar Runway Extension Study.  Go to the County website at www.sdcountyairports.com.  Click the link near the center of the page.

What is the Carlsbad City Council position?   Does the County need any City Council or voter approvals to extend the Palomar runway?  And is the City willing to resolve the question timely and in a public fashion?  

Given all the problems noted in Blogs 34 to 40, the City Council needs to hold workshops to discuss Palomar expansion.