Today’s blog documents the concerted effort of the County and Carlsbad to exclude the pubic from commenting on Palomar Airport expansion issues.
On August 24, 2012, Carlsbad commented on an FAA environmental document related to a new air carrier using larger planes and substantially increasing passenger loads at Palomar Airport.
Carlsbad expressed concern about the consistency of such expanded uses with the Carlsbad General Plan. Carlsbad specifically noted restrictions set forth in Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172, Condition 11.
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Request for Public Hearing
For nearly six months [from August 24, 2012 to February, 2013], neither Carlsbad nor the County acted publicly to address or resolve Carlsbad’s concern.
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Because of Carlsbad inaction, I asked the Carlsbad City Council - by letter handed out at a February, 2013 Carlsbad Council meeting - to schedule a public agenda item to discuss the County’s compliance with CUP 172 when operating Palomar Airport. In April, 2012, I renewed the request in writing.
Closed Session
Instead of scheduling a public agenda item to receive comments from the public on the County’s compliance with CUP 172, it appears that Carlsbad scheduled a closed session to discuss CUP 172 in April, 2012.
I have requested copies of the Carlsbad agendas and meeting minutes to review exactly what Carlsbad told the public about its CUP 172 discussions. Until that review is complete, I have limited information to report. However, it has been clear for many years that the County does not want to reveal its Palomar Airport development plans.
It is unclear why the Carlsbad City Council refuses to hold a public hearing on the proper interpretation of CUP 172. The CUP 172 issues arise repeatedly as Palomar expands its facilities and its operations.
The issue will arise again within a year when the County considers the extension of the Palomar Runway from 4900 feet to 6000 feet. Recall that CUP Condition 8 requires amendment of CUP 172 if the County expands Palomar Airport.
If history is any guide, the County will assert that extending the Palomar Runway 1100 feet does not expand the airport and CUP 172 need not be amended. Carlsbad and the County will again meet behind closed doors. If possible, Carlsbad will likely again avoid a public hearing.
Past County and Carlsbad Reluctance to Resolve CUP 172 Issues Openly: The 1997 Palomar Airport Master Plan
In 1997, the County adopted its Palomar Airport Master Plan [MP] for the period ending in 2015. Carlsbad staff then noted:
"[County] Airport staff would like to bring the MP forward for [Carlsbad] Plannning Commission and City Council review as an information item.
Staff has reviewed the draft MP and determined that the MP is substantially different from the Airport plans previously approved under [Carlsbad] Conditional Use Permit 172 ... . Therefore, staff proposes to advise the Airport staff that they must submit a CUP amendment for the proposed MP.
Airport staff have expressed concern regarding an update of their CUP. Their problem with the CUP amendment is the potential for public objections to the proposed MP which could jeopardize new airport terminal improvements." [See July 11, 1996 Michael J. Holzmiller memo.] [Emphasis added.]
Behind closed doors, the County expressed its intent clearly: Let’s not involve the public even though development of Palomar Airport can affect Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista.
What more evidence does the FAA or public need to show that neither Carlsbad nor the County is complying with fiduciary disclosure requirements?
