Palomar Airport: Should Supervisors be Proud?

Should the Board of Supervisors, especially Supervisor Bill Horn for North County, be proud of  McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) Airport’s record?

Aesthetics

• 1990 – 2014  County ignored repeated Carlsbad pleas asking county to landscape the Palomar Airport slopes.

Environment:

• 1980 – 2014  County failed to prepare any Palomar project EIRs.

• 1980 – 2014  County failed to disclose the Palomar airport landfill problems - fires, methane gas emissions over regulatory limits, and falsified consultant methane gas readings - in the few CEQA negative declarations prepared.

• 2012  County failed to inform the FAA California Pacific Airlines (CPA) analysts of environmental impacts of county’s upcoming project on airport land south of Palomar Airport Road (the “Lowe’s development”).

• 2012  County refused to explain how the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee could vote on the CPA project before the environmental analysis was final – normally a no-no.   

Financial:

• 2011 – 2013  County on-Palomar-airport operations lost money as evidenced by county financial statements.

• 2013  County records indicate that the county lost a $675,000 FAA grant to prepare its Palomar Master Plan because county did not comply with FAA consultant selection requirements.  See details in the next blog.

Public Relations:

• 2012 – 2014 County Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC) multiple times refused to place Palomar Airport related items in which the public has expressed concerns on the PAAC monthly agenda.

• 2013 County PAAC gave the public only 2 weeks to review the 400+ page Kimley Runway Extension Study that recommends a 900-foot runway extension and refused a request made several days before the hearing to continue the hearing.

• 2013 – 2014 County has refused to make available the Kimley runway extension records to show if Kimley complied with FAA benefit cost requirements.

• 2012 – 2014 County and Carlsbad have collaborated to avoid Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.53.015 and Conditional Use Permit 172  to head off a vote of the public on extending Palomar runway 900-feet.

Safety:

• 1990 – 2012 County failed to improve its runway safety areas on the east side of the runway even though its own October 2013 consultant report confirmed a long known problem.  Operating C3 and D3 aircraft  (such as the Gulfstream IV that ran off the Philadelphia runway over the weekend and killed 7) at the B2 Palomar Airport creates serious risks related to the Palomar landfills.

Is Palomar the tip of the iceberg?  Does the Board of Supervisors supervise county operations throughout the county this poorly?