Palomar Airport: A 12 Month Recap, Blog #52

After a year of blogs, what do we know about Palomar Airport, the County, the County’s Palomar Airport Advisory Committee, and Carlsbad oversight of Palomar Airport land use?

Palomar Airport

• Operates at a loss;

•  Has about one half of the operations (landings and takeoffs) as in 1998;

•  Was designed as an FAA rated B-II airport with runway safety & approach areas sized for small, slower general aviation aircraft;

•  Serves jets of which 45% are FAA rated C & D aircraft that should use an             airport with longer runway safety and longer approach areas;

•  Uses a runway that on the east lies next to a problem-plagued closed landfill             whose underground methane gas collection system has continuing problems;

• Maintains a landfill that has no liner to catch escaping aviation fuel from a             downed plane and has not been designed to support downed large, heavy aircraft and assisting fire fighting equipment.

 County

• Failed to maintain a current Airport Layout Plan [ALP] on file with the FAA in             violation of FAA requirements.  The ALP is supposed to be the “blueprint”             showing the public the current airport conditions, proposed future changes, and how the airport deviates from FAA design requirements.

• Has not prepared a California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Impact Report for Palomar Improvements for 40 years and regularly short-circuits the  environmental process by splitting projects, limiting alternatives considered, and gnoring environmental cumulative impacts.

• Expressed its concerns to Carlsbad in 1995 that the 1995-2015  Palomar             Airport Master Plan should not require review under Carlsbad Conditional Use             Permit [CUP]172 due to concerns the public might object to certain development.

• Converted Palomar from a “General Aviation Basic Transport” airport to an FAA Part 139 airport to serve regularly scheduled commercial flights without a CUP 172 Amendment even though Carlsbad CUP Condition 11 required a CUP amendment if Palomar lost its general aviation basic transport designation.

• Failed in mid 2012 to note inadequacies in the FAA California Pacific Airlines             environmental document for new air carrier service at Palomar.   The CPA             barely noted “cumulative impacts.”  The County failed to even alert CPA that the County itself was developing the large “Palomar Commons” area (Lowe’s, bank, gas station, multiple retail sites) on airport property directly adjacent to Palomar Airport.

Palomar Airport Advisory Committee (PAAC)

• In mid-2012 voted to support the proposed California Pacific Airline new service at Palomar before the FAA environmental process was complete and before the time for public comment was closed.

• In mid-2013 voted to accept the 400+page Kimley-Horn Palomar Runway             Extension recommendations three weeks after the report was completed and             before the public had an adequate chance to review the report.

• Regularly ignores requests from the public to place requested Palomar related             items on its agenda.

Carlsbad

• Has a dedicated planning, environmental, and real estate staff that seems to want to enforce Carlsbad Ordinance 21.53.015 and CUP 172.  The ordinance requires a vote of Carlsbad voters if the County wants to expand Palomar; BUT only if the expansion requires an amendment to the Carlsbad General Plan or Zoning.  The CUP requires the County to seek an amendment to CUP 172 if the County expands Palomar or extends the runway. [See CUP Condition 8.]

• Has a City Council that wants to ignore the Ordinance and CUP 172 to promote business development in Carlsbad including corporate business flights to China. For instance, Carlsbad ignored the CUP 172, Condition 11 “general aviation basic transport” provision when the County converted Palomar to an airport regularly scheduled commercial aviation.

Next Week:  Palomar’s Future: What to Watch for in 2013 and 2014.