Palomar Airport: PMP Questions for the County, Part 3C, Blog 71

From the last two blogs, we know that the 2015-2035 County Palomar Airport Master Plan (PMP) will likely ignore key planning and zoning Palomar expansion issues.  Nonetheless, this blog suggests questions the County PMP should discuss if the County wants to satisfy its FAA community consultation duty.  

Will the County and Carlsbad Allow Carlsbad Voters to Vote on the Palomar Runway Extension Based on Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.53.015?

As documented last week, the County Counsel in 2011  – without knowing any of the facts or impacts of extending the Palomar runway from 4897 feet to 5800 feet –  said that Carlsbad need not change its general plan or zoning or enact legislation to allow a runway extension.  You would think that an objective County analysis would answer the questions below before saying no Carlsbad vote is required.

• Growth-Inducing Impacts: Flights.  How will extending the runway affect the number, size, frequency, and glide path of aircraft using Palomar?  In other words, will extending the runway result in annual flights increasing from the 2013 level of about 155,000 to 295,000 (the late 1990s level) or even to 600,000 by 2035?

• Growth-Inducing Impacts: Passengers.  How will extending the runway increase passenger levels?  In 2013, Palomar handled about 100,000 passengers.  California Pacific Airlines proposes flights that could raise passenger levels to more than 800,000 annually. What happens by 2035?

• Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172 Limitations. Conditions 8 and 11 of Carlsbad CUP 172 require the County to seek a CUP 172 amendment if the County expands Palomar Airport or changes the airport classification from that of “general aviation basic transport.” 

The County has already received approval to operate Palomar as an “FAA Part 139” Airport, namely an airport that regularly handles scheduled passenger service.  A Part 39 Airport is not a “general aviation basic transport” airport.  And the State Aeronautics Act classifies a runway extension as an airport expansion. [See PUC §21664.5]

Is the required CUP 172 amendment a legislative enactment that triggers a vote of Carlsbad voters?  If not, why not?  The action needed is by the Carlsbad legislative body, the City Council.  The action would allow expanded airport uses.  Don’t government planning and zoning law determine what land uses are appropriate?  And that is precisely what a CUP 172 amendment does.  And precisely why County and Carlsbad wish to ignore CUP 172.

• The Impact of a Runway Extension on Zoning & Planning Compatibility Land Use Plan (CLUP).   The County PMP regulates only on-airport development.  In contrast, a Palomar Airport Compatibility Land Use Plan analyzes how airport development affects the use of property around Palomar Airport.  As California Public Utilities Code (PUC) § 21674(a) says, the purpose of a CLUP is to promote compatibility between airports and land uses that surround them.  Increasing the size, frequency, and glide path of aircraft using Palomar could easily affect surrounding zoning.  Hence, changes to the CLUP may also trigger a Carlsbad voting requirement.

Apparently, the County is able to approve Palomar Airport expansion without considering pesky facts.  If the County will not address the above issues, should the San Diego Grand Jury ask Carlsbad and the County to file a declaratory relief action in court so that the rights of the public can objectively be determined?

Next Week: More Planning and Zoning Questions for the County

P.S. Several U.S. planes had March problems.  A US Airways flight overran the Philadelphia runway, apparently after a tire blew and the landing gear collapsed. [CNNU.S., US Airways plane blows tire on takeoff in Philadelphia, passengers evacuated by L. Remizowski, L. Ferrigno and G. Botelho, March 14, 2014.]  Also, yesterday, Delta flight 2412 from Orlando to Atlanta lost a large panel from one of its wings but landed safely. [CNNTravel, Delta plane loses wing panel during flight, by M. Smith & J. DiGiacomo, March 17, 2014.  And Palomar does not want to remediate its runway landfill problems unless and until the County can lengthen the runway?

It is a foregone conclusion.   The County will extend Palomar Airport runway by 900-feet if the County can find the money.  Just look at the statements of Supervisor Bill Horn and Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall [http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/mar/13/oceanside-bill-horn-state-north-county-speech/]