Palomar Airport: The County PMP: What Planning Law? Part 3A, Blog 69

Today marks the third article related to the County Palomar Master Plan (PMP). 

Will Carlsbad residents be able to vote on the PMP or on a County 900-foot Palomar runway extension when the PMP is completed?  Will the Carlsbad City Council have to amend Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 to accommodate PMP projects?

The County has some explaining to do.  The 2015-2035 County PMP could do that. 

Who Controls Palomar Airport Development: the County or Carlsbad?

Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.53.015 says that Carlsbad voters must approve Palomar Airport expansion.  But only if an expansion requires a zone change, general plan amendment, or Council legislative enactment.

By Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172, the County agreed to seek CUP amendments if the County changes the airport use from that of a general aviation basic transport airport (CUP Condition 11) or expands the airport (Condition 8).  Last year, Blogs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 explained how the County and Carlsbad ignore the “general aviation basic transport” CUP limitation.

Now the analysis gets very interesting.

The County December 3, 1979 application to Carlsbad asking for a rezoning of the airport property and for the enactment of CUP 172 said:

•  “Although, in general, County is not legally bound by the requirements of local planning agencies, as noted in Board Policy F-20, the nature of airport development by private investors under County land lease is unique. County/City agreement on procedures relative to such lease development is appropriate.  County or FAA construction projects, on the other hand, require different considerations.”

• “County staff will consult with the planning agencies within whose jurisdiction the proposed facility is to be located and willgive appropriate consideration to the normal zoning and improvement requirements of those activities in formulating its recommendations for the proposed facility. Project development shall conform with all reasonable requirements of such agencies.   [Massman, County Director of Transportation to Carlsbad Director of Planning]

Say What?

So what did Carlsbad and the County agree to in 1979/1980 when Municipal Code  § 21.053.015 and CUP 172 were enacted?  Possibilities include:

1.     Carlsbad regulates private development by Palomar Airport tenants, but not County development.

2.     Carlsbad regulates private Palomar Airport development but only can consult with, not decide whether, the County can expand Palomar.

3.     Carlsbad regulates both private and County Palomar development because the County both applied for and accepted CUP 172 including all terms related to Palomar operation.

The 1997 PMP did not discuss these issues.  The PMP simply noted §21.53.015 & CUP 172 in passing.  [See the 3 paragraphs on 1997 PMP page 2-11.]

Should We Care?

The public needs to know what planning and zoning law the County will follow when Palomar expands.  Carlsbad law?  County law?  No law? 

Assume the County position is that the County can expand Palomar as the County wishes as long as the County first talks to Carlsbad without asking for Carlsbad action.  If past County action is a guide, the County likely takes this position.

Is the County saying that there are no County planning and zoning laws that apply to Palomar when the County pays $90 million to extend the runway and taxiways by 900 feet?  Especially when Palomar has the environmental and safety problems noted in the County’s own SCS Engineers October 2013 report?  [Blogs 63 to 67.]  What planning and zoning law does the County apply at its other 7 County airports and what does that law say?

A responsible 2015-2035 County PMP needs to discuss these issues.  Hopefully, the FAA, the source of County airport grant monies, will insist upon it before making any further grants.

In addition, within a few weeks, Carlsbad will release its updated General Plan for comment.   The Carlsbad General Plan also needs to tell us what Palomar Airport development the City does and does not regulate.