CBad, county draw lines over Palomar Airport
The City Council approves zoning, General Plan amendments from resident group; county challenges legality of proposed changes citing previous court ruling and settlement agreement
CARLSBAD — Lines have been drawn as the battle over McClellan-Palomar Airport heats up after the City Council approved several proposed zoning and code amendments and permit review procedures during Tuesday’s meeting.
At the behest of Citizens for a Friendly Airport (CF4A) and its legal counsel, the Chatten-Brown Law Group, the council approved the measures to review procedures for new or expanded airport uses, redefining “airport expansion” to be consistent with the California Public Utilities Commission code, add “airport” into the city code, modify uses and amend city code regarding the approval of the Conditional Use Permit 172 (CUP) to ensure the City Council has final approval over “airport expansion.”
Additionally, the council, CF4A and some residents said the underlying issue is local control over any planned expansion of the airport, although CF4A has cited many other concerns for years, specifically the airport expanding.
“I do think this resolution provides the clarity to the public and the other government partners we work with,” Councilwoman Teresa Acosta said during the meeting. “I think we really need to be bold and clear that the county waived its immunities.”
The council’s actions, though, must go through a series of reviews and comments before the council can fully adopt any changes to the code, according to Mike Strong, the city’s assistant director of community development. The changes must be sent to the Native American tribes, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the Carlsbad Planning Commission and the California Coastal Commission, he said.
Strong said while the council would like an accelerated approval process, each entity has a specific time frame to approve or challenge any changes to the code or General Plan. He said the county may object.
The estimated timeline is for the Planning Commission to hear the matter in January or February 2025 followed by an 18- to 24-month process from the Coastal Commission.
Acosta has long been a critic of the airport regarding noise and expansion, while Mayor Keith Blackburn has previously said the city wants the airport to be “good neighbors” regarding the so-called Voluntary Noise Abatement Program. The VNAP has long been a source of contention with CF4A and some residents who live near the airport.
In December, the City Council approved sending letters to pilots who violate the VNAP, although under federal law neither the city nor the county can levy any enforcement or fine, according to the county’s website. According to county data, just 0.539%, or 78, of takeoffs and landings were during recommended quiet hours out of 15,000 total monthly operations in October 2023, North County Pipeline reported in February.
Other fears from residents over the past six years include the county expanding the airport to the same footprint as John Wayne Airport in Orange County and allowing larger commercial jets, such as a Boeing 737, to perform operations in Carlsbad. John Wayne is roughly double in size.
“Airports are complicated issues, especially Palomar,” CF4A President Vicky Syage told the council. “The city of Carlsbad has local control of the airport. That was part of our annexation agreement that got lost somewhere over the years. The county signed their rights away.”
However, San Diego County, which owns the airport, sent a five-page letter to Blackburn on Tuesday strongly challenging the city’s actions, especially with the CUP and addressing a long-standing controversy over the Master Plan’s lengthening of the runway and other items. Dahvia Lynch, the interim deputy chief administrative officer, disputed CF4A and its legal counsel’s interpretation of the CUP 172, the definition of “airport expansion,” waiving immunities and other issues.
Another stalemate
The resident group has long been a vocal critic of the airport as members have complained about noise, operations and the Master Plan update, which calls to realign the taxiway and runway, along with lengthening the runway and updating facilities, to name a few.
The county Board of Supervisors approved the update in 2018 (and again in 2021) and CF4A sued the county and the city over the environmental report. The city also sued the county over the Master Plan update before entering into a settlement in 2019. The court ruled the county erred in its noise mitigation and violated the California Environmental Quality Act, which the county then remedied.
Additionally, the settlement saw the city and county reach a 20-year agreement to work collaboratively to address the city, county and Federal Aviation Administration’s legal authorities and to minimize impacts on residents. Part of the agreement, according to the city, is the county has immunities from city building and zoning ordinances and those may apply to projects by airport lessees and contractors, The Coast News reported in 2019, thus appears to contradict statements from Syage, Acosta and city staff.
Also, the county agreed to allow the city to “review and provide input on major development projects initiated by the county at the airport, its tenants and contractors,” the city council’s outside counsel disclosed in 2019. (Read the settlement here)
The Master Plan calls for the airport to upgrade from a B-II designation to a D-III, which can accommodate larger private aircraft, according to the plan. Other upgrades include extending the runway up to 900 feet (making the runway more than 5,000 feet for safety), realigning the runway and taxiway and installing an Emergency Materials Arresting System for safety.
County responds to City Council action
Lynch’s letter said the Cup 172 amendment was “specifically omitted” from the facilities allowed by right at “Table I of CUP-172.” She further argues CF4A’s legal counsel argument over aligning city code with the CPUC code does not apply as the CPUC code is specific to “state-issued airport operating permits.” The county holds the permit for McClellan-Palomar Airport.
She said the argument was reviewed and rejected by the court as the judge ruled, “the Court does agree with the County’s (sic) interpretation of the term ‘expansion’ and that no amendment (of CUP-172) was required on the basis of the proposed changes set forth in the project.” Lynch said the understanding dates back to a 1993 letter and agreement with the city regarding commercial aviation service and improvements on facilities in accordance with CUP 172.
She said if the city moves forward with the zoning ordinances and General Plan amendments to align with the CPUC, those changes can’t properly be applied to the county. The ruling did not find the county’s waiver of any immunities extends to subsequently enacted city ordinances nor did the ruling address the county’s vested rights under CUP 172.
“The May 3, 1993, letter was presented to the court and was a basis for the ruling agreeing with the county’s interpretation of the term expansion,” Lynch wrote. “The county appreciates CF4A may be dissatisfied with the part of the ruling, but no appeal was taken, and the decision is final.”