Last week’s blog outlined a long history of County Palomar Airport expansion while keeping the public in the dark.
Supervisor Bill Horn has encouraged the growth of a regional airport. Palomar’s manager says Palomar is now the 4th busiest single runway airport in the nation. San Diego International Airport at Lindbergh Field is first. [See North County Regional Vision Takes Flight At Palomar Airport, March 15, 2013 by Alison St John, KPBS.]
What should the public look for in 2014 to see if the County, Carlsbad, and the FAA are playing by the rules when developing Palomar? Today, Part 1.
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Airport Layout Plan [ALP] and Palomar 2015-2035 Master Plan [MP]
· Critical Design Aircraft. Is the County honestly choosing the critical design aircraft when it proposes Palomar development? The FAA defines the “critical design aircraft” as the aircraft that are intended to be accommodated by the airport. [See FAA AC 150/5300-13A, ¶105.b.]
Find out what's happening in Carlsbadwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The KH Study tells us that 45% of the jets using Palomar are faster and larger FAA-rated C and D aircraft. [KH Study p. 0-2] Yet the KH Runway Study uses the Falcon 2000 aircraft as the critical design aircraft. The Falcon is an FAA B-rated aircraft. [KH Study p. 0-2.] Will the new ALP and MP ID the real critical design aircraft?
Why does the County use the Falcon? So the County can avoid the longer runway safety and approach requirements for the larger and faster aircraft. In other words, extend the Palomar runway 900 feet but don’t extend the runway safety area at the end. Why not? Too expensive because more work over the closed landfill.
· Palomar Future Plans. Will the ALP & MP clearly say how the County intends to expand Palomar in the next 20 years?
The KH Study says that converting Palomar to an FAA design-compliant category “C” airport costs too much. But the Study still proposes massive retaining walls now. Such walls appear to be the first step for Palomar to convert its land footprint to a size sufficient for an FAA category “C” runway and taxiways. Will the County explain in the MP and environmental documents why any large retaining walls are needed now?
Compliance with Carlsbad Zoning and Planning Laws
As noted in Blog #34, when the County prepared its 1995-2015 Palomar Airport Master Plan, the County wanted to avoid public disclosures.
Carlsbad planning staff reported that it appeared the County did not want to apply for an amendment to Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit [CUP] 172 due to the County concern that the public might oppose development.
Will the County again try to sidestep CUP 172 even though CUP Table 1 does not include Palomar runway changes as a preapproved category of improvements and although CUP 172 Conditions 8 and 11 require a CUP amendment for Palomar Airport expansion? And will Carlsbad allow the County to ignore CUP 172?
The EMAS [Engineered Materials Arresting System] & Retaining Wall Shuffle
Airports sometimes need an EMAS system to “catch” aircraft that overrun a runway. The EMAS, a lightweight concrete pad engineered to deform, usually stops aircraft forced to use it. KH proposes an EMAS at the Palomar west end runway. The EMAS may well be desirable, if properly designed and located.
But it appears the County may also be trying to construct large retaining walls – a first step toward expanding the airport – at the same times the County constructs the EMAS.
Will the County MP and EMAS Study and related environmental documents explain why a retaining wall is necessary if one is proposed as part of an EMAS? Why not simply move the runway westend 200 feet toward the east and extend the runway eastend 200 feet to retain the same runway length?
Next week:The Palomar Future: Part II: A Truthful County CEQA Analysis and a Truthful County Economic Analysis?
