Pinocchio Chronicles 12: Carlsbad, the County, and the FAA, #300

Pinocchio articles 1 and 10 provided evidence from the FAA refuting Supervisor Jim Desmond’s claim that the FAA, not the county, decides whether McClellan-Palomar Airport (Palomar) should be expanded.

The Board of Supervisors in the next 4 months will again vote on whether county wants Palomar to extend the runway from 4900-feet to 5700 feet and to convert Palomar from an FAA-rated B-II airport to a D-III airport capable of handling much larger, faster, more fuel-laden aircraft, which would increase noise, traffic, and pollution impacts on communities within 20 miles of Palomar.

The revote must occur because Superior Court Judge Pollock decided earlier this year that (1) the county EIR failed to properly analyze Palomar expansion noise impacts and (2) the county was not properly following Carlsbad’s Conditional Use Permit 172 Palomar conditions.

This article provides evidence from the California Supreme Court explaining why Supervisor Desmond and the other 4 supervisors need to do their homework before voting again on the county 20-Year Palomar Master Plan (PMP) and PMP revised EIR.

The Westchester v. Los Angeles Court Case

Westchester is a Los Angeles suburb stretching from the ocean to LAX. Forty years ago in Greater Westchester Homeowners Association v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86 the California Supreme Court explained why the City of Los Angeles was legally responsible for the nuisances caused by the operation and expansion of LAX. That case resulted in the city’s acquisition of hundreds of parcels near LAX and substantially gutted the Westchester quality of life. The court said:

“We find significance in the depth and continuous nature of City’s involvement in the creation and maintenance of the nuisance in question. City concedes that it, and not the federal government, decided to build and then to expand the airport in the immediate vicinity of a residential area. It is undeniable that City chose the particular location and direction of the airport runways. It approved their usage by jet aircraft. It entered into service agreements with commercial air carriers all with full and prior knowledge of the potential noise impact.

Admittedly, some of the foregoing actions by City followed federal advice, approval and perhaps even encouragement. Nonetheless, city chose and was not forced by anyone, to develop LAX in its particular location. City voluntarily elected to expand the facility, with foreknowledge of the preexisting nature and usage of the surrounding area. There is no evidence before us that City opposed the current level of federally approved jet service at LAX. Fair inferences are to the contrary.

Nor has City lacked the means to meet the obligations herein imposed. Since at least 1965 public entities have had statutory power to condemn “aircraft noise … easements,” and to secure, in appropriate quantities, land which might otherwise be the subject of noise damage action. This power and City’s responsibility to exercise it in such a manner as to minimize noise at LAX have been publicly acknowledge by airport management. Aircraft landing fees have been established to assist in meeting the costs of land acquisition.

With particular reference to the matter before us, plaintiff’s acoustician testified at trial that as early as 1967 he had suggested to LAX officials the economic feasibility of constructing ground barriers to deflect and diminish LAX noise. The soundproofing of adjacent structures and restrictions on noise generated by static engine tests were additional proposed alternatives. Accordingly, City cannot fairly argue that federal law has rendered City powerless to prevent or reduce the damages of which plaintiffs complain.” [Emphasis added.]

Conclusion:

Supervisor Desmond tries to shift responsibility to the FAA from the county for Palomar Airport expansion for one of four reasons.

First, he has been a commercial pilot for many years and may wish to fly in the future and curry favor with the airlines or corporations needing pilots by voting to expand Palomar; OR

Second, he and other supervisors want to escape retribution at the polls for expanding Palomar. They would much rather have the public believe that the FAA makes the expansion decision; OR

Third, he wants to minimize the financial liability that the county incurs for creating nuisances arising from expanded Palomar Airport operations; OR

Four, Supervisor Desmond simply has not done his homework. We encourage him to correct his misstatements at the Board’s 2021 Cinco de Mayo Board of Supervisor meeting when Palomar Airport issues were last before the Board.