Palomar Airport: Part A: Carlsbad’s CUP 172, More & More Curious, Blog 35

The Carlsbad City Council held closed sessions in September & December 2012 to discuss Palomar Airport.  But apparently not also in April 2013, as suspected.

Officially, the Carlsbad 2012 closed session minutes list the topic as “to consider initiation of litigation against the County of San Diego.”  The September discussion was held three weeks after Carlsbad’s August 2013 comments on the FAA California Pacific Airline environmental assessment.

The Carlsbad August comments said that a new air carrier expanding Palomar flights raised concerns about the County’s compliance with Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172. Carlsbad has not solicited public input on CUP 172 by also scheduling an open session item.

Could Carlsbad Hold the Palomar Closed Sessions?

The California Brown Act allows government agencies to hold closed sessions to discuss pending and expected lawsuits. [See G.C. 54956.9]   As long as Carlsbad discussed no more than the pros and cons of suing the County to enforce CUP 172, the 2012 closed sessions were proper.  Notably, the Carlsbad 2012 minutes report “no final action was taken on these matters and they will be reported at a future meeting when final action occurs.”

The CUP Chronology

1975 - Carlsbad Mayor Robert Frazee sent a letter to the County Board of Supervisors saying Carlsbad was unalterably opposed to Palomar being used for commercial air-carrier activities.  

1979 - Carlsbad citizens filed an initiative petition to limit Palomar growth.

1980 - Carlsbad City Council agreed that Palomar Airport expansions involving planning or zoning changes required a vote of Carlsbad residents.  County agreed to CUP 172.   CUP 172 Condition 8 requires the CUP to be amended if Palomar expands.  Condition 11 requires Palomar to remain a “general aviation basic transport” airport until CUP 172 is amended.

1990 to 2005 – Carlsbad, without public input, did not object to Palomar  and Board of Supervisor policy changes essentially expanding Palomar commercial air carrier uses.   Without bringing the issue to the attention of Carlsbad citizens, the Council essentially agreed to ignore the CUP 172 general aviation condition. 

2005-2007 – Carlsbad did not object to Palomar buying three off Palomar lots, converting them to airport parking, and expanding airport parking outside the CUP 172 Exhibit A premises.

2012 – Palomar handled 100,000 passengers.   California Pacific Airlines announced that it wished to start new Palomar service that in the first few years could handle as many as an additional 700,000 passengers.

August, 2012 – Carlsbad expressed CUP concerns about new Palomar air service and with the consistency of the  new air service use with the Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element.

4th Quarter 2012 – Carlsbad Council met in closed session but took no final CUP action.

1st Quarter 2013 – No Carlsbad Council open or closed session CUP 172 or Palomar Airport items were found.  Carlsbad staff met with County staff regarding CUP 172.

April 2013 – Carlsbad City Manager withdrew the CUP August 2012 comments.

Why is the Carlsbad April 2013 City Manager CUP Withdrawal Curious?

The above chronology leaves us with this question: If the Carlsbad City Council (1) discussed CUP 172 in 2012 but took no final action – as the Carlsbad meeting minutes report and (2) did not discuss the issue again before the City Manager withdrew Carlsbad’s August 24, 2012 CUP 172 letter concerns, where did the City Manager get the authority to withdraw the letter?   See next week’s blog for discussion of this issue.   For now, recall that the Carlsbad City Charter provides:

“ARTICLE 3. LOCAL LIMITS OF GROWTH CONTROL. Section 300. Local Limits of Growth Control.]

 "… The intent of this Charter is to allow the City Council and the voters to exercise the maximum degree of control over land use matters within the City of Carlsbad.  [Emphasis added.]

How is the Carlsbad City Council honoring its charter and Brown Act obligations to fully involve its citizens in land use control matters when the Council twice meets in secret about Palomar Airport expansion, never outlines the Palomar CUP issues for the public, never gives the public an opportunity to discuss issues so important that the citizens went to the trouble of supporting a voter initiative, and then five months later Carlsbad quietly sends a two paragraph letter withdrawing its CUP 172 concerns?