Three projects top the 2014 County Palomar agenda. Prepare the 2015-2035 Airport Master Plan. Build the runway west end safety system. Build the Palomar runway east 900-foot extension.
Last week we listed County actions to watch in 2014. Today, a CEQA list begins.
County 2014 CEQA Actions to Scrutinize
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
KPBS reported in 2013 on the “State of North County” forum held at Palomar:
“Dozens of corporations fly their private jets in and out of the airstrip, and the private hangars dwarf the public departure and arrivals lounge …. The rapid development is funded with $55 million from the county’s airport enterprise fund, including federal dollars, and $140 million in private investment. [North County Regional Vision Takes Flight At Palomar Airport, 3/15/13 by Alison St John]
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
How do politicians tout $195,000,000 of Palomar improvement and yet not prepare a Palomar CEQA EIR for 40 years? As noted in Blogs # 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12, County has used many ploys to avoid an EIR. Today we discuss two:
· Piecemeal Projects. Break them into bits to limit environmental impacts
· Ignore Feasible Project Alternatives.
The 2013 Kimley Runway Extension Study already hints at continued ploys.
Piecemealing. County has not shown why a west end Palomar safety system to stop planes from overrunning the runway requires massive retaining walls.
But the County wants the walls. Why? The County can create a wider North to South Palomar footprint. A wider footprint satisfies FAA plane separation requirements that apply to an FAA C-rated airport.
Will the County, under the guise of building an EMAS, take the first step to convert Palomar to an FAA C-rated airport? And avoid discussion of what noise, safety, traffic, or pollution impacts a C-rated airport would create? Examine the 2014 County CEQA documents carefully.
Ignore Feasible Project Options. The Kimley Study does not consider EMAS location options. If the County claims a massive EMAS retaining wall is needed because the EMAS butts up to a canyon, the EMAS and runway can be shifted east a short distance. It is unlikely that a massive retaining wall is needed for the Kimley-designated EMAS site. But a wall certainly is not needed with a runway shift.
The likely County response to this suggestion will be silence. Or, a claim that a runway shift costs more. Examine the 2014 County CEQA analysis carefully.
A County “increased cost” argument fails for two reasons. Eliminating massive retaining wall costs will offset runway shifting costs.
More importantly, politicians can’t complain if they leave their hands on a stove and burn them – especially when they have been trying to hide their plans to expand and convert Palomar.
Since 1993, the County has been piecemealing Palomar projects. Why? To convert Palomar to a C-rated airport while avoiding public scrutiny. The march began in 1993 when County asked for FAA approval to convert Palomar to a Part 139 airport to handle regularly scheduled large commercial jets.
The County could have prepared the required CEQA EIR when seeking FAA Part 139 approval. Or in 1995 when it wrote the 1995-2015 Palomar Airport Master Plan. Or in the mid 2000s before the County: 1) rebuilt the runway down to 30 inches, 2) enlarged the terminal building, 3) relocated and enlarged airport parking off the terminal, 4) created the customs facility, 5) approved larger tenant hangars, 6) increased airport fuel storage capacity, and 7) improved Palomar taxiways.
Now the “chickens have come home to roost.” The County will claim foul to any runway shift suggestion. After all, how does the County explain to the FAA that the County wants the FAA to pay twice for runway work? First in 2008. Again in 2014 because the County has badly planned. And how does the FAA grant the County more funds when the County consistently shirks CEQA?
