HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-19; Code Amendments for New or Expanded Airport Uses - Coastal Commission Review Status (Districts - All); Murphy, JeffTo the members of the:
CITY COUNCl,L
Date 3/1 'l lzbcA _v_ cc /
CM ~ _LoCM (3) _L.
March 19, 2026
Council Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council
Jeff Murphy, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Via: Sheila Cobian, Assistant City Manage &(('
{city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID# 2026010
Re:
Mike Strong, Community Developme~t ~~tor
Code Amendments for New or Expan tf1(irport Uses -Coastal Commission Review
Status (Districts -All)
This memorandum provides a status update on the McClellan-Palomar Airport (airport) related
code amendments that were approved by the City Council on December 3, 2024, which was
scheduled to be certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on March 11, 2026. The item
was pulled from the CCC Consent Calendar by CCC staff and postponed. The application will be
scheduled for a public hearing and voting at a later meeting.
Background
In response to concerns raised by the Carlsbad community, the City Council amended the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to adopt code amendments to address new or expanded
airport land uses. The code amendments clarify that the definition of "airport expansion" includes
the extension or realignment of an existing runway or the construction of a new runway. The code
amendments also specify the city's role, review and approval of an airport expansion or
enlargement plan. The code amendments implement the city's review authority under the State
Aeronautics Act, specifically California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6, in the event the
County of San Diego, which owns and operates the airport, acquires property beyond the current
boundaries of the airport.
The City of Carlsbad Zoning Code, Title 21, constitutes a portion of the city's Local Coastal Program
(LCP} Implementation Plan . Even though the airport lies entirely outside of the Coastal Zone, the
portion of the project that amended the Zoning Ordinance also amended the LCP Implementation
Plan . Therefore, an amendment to the LCP must be submitted to the CCC for review and approval
before it can be implemented in accordance with the Coastal Act. The changes to the Zoning
Ordinance for areas outside the coastal zone (Ordinance CS-479} became effective on
January 2, 2025, 30 days from the date of adoption.
Discussion
After adoption, the city transmitted an application to the CCC, including all necessary supporting
documentation for intake processing. The LCP amendment application (Case No. LCP-6-CAR-25-
0007-1/ Airport Uses) was deemed complete by the CCC staff in November 2025.
Community Services Branch
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-5088 t
Council Memo -Code Amendments for New or Expanded Airport Uses -Coastal Commission
March 19, 2026
Page 2
The LCP amendment was scheduled for public hearing on March 11, 2026, as item 19a. The item
was placed on consent and carried a staff recommendation of approval. Shortly prior to the public
hearing, CCC staff received a comment letter from the County of San Diego regarding the LCP
Amendment included as Attachment A. Typically, when there is public comment on an agenda
item, the item would be pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Given the
public comment was from another governmental agency, CCC staff decided to postpone the
hearing to give an opportunity for the two agencies to work out the issue before returning.
Among other things, the County of San Diego letter asserts that the proposed LCP amendment is
inconsistent with the Coastal Act, and the Implementation Plan is inadequate because of the
"vesting rights" that were secured by the conditional use permit issued by the City of Carlsbad or
protected because of "preemption" or "immunity" under federal law. In this instance, where a
project necessitates an amendment to an Implementation Plan portion of a LCP, the standard of
review for proposed changes is whether the proposed amendment conforms with and is adequate
to implement provisions of the certified LCP, not the Coastal Act. The CCC Staff Report dated
March 11, 2026, was prepared and concluded that there was consistency required for approval.
The validity of any "vested right" or any rights conferred by a permit issued decades ago, or others
claims of "preemption" or other "immunities," are not within the purview of the CCC. Moreover,
the airport is located entirely outside of the Coastal Zone. Any disagreements on the city's permit
review procedures for new or expanded airport land uses are unrelated to the city's LCP
amendment application before the CCC.
Next Steps
Since concerns were raised by the County of San Diego, city staff will work with the CCC staff on a
response before the LCP amendment is presented to the full CCC at a public hearing. This entire
process is expected to take one to two months, with a rescheduled public hearing in three to four
months.
Attachment: A. County of San Diego comment letter, dated March 6, 2026
cc: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Dalton Sorich, Assistant City Attorney
Jason Haber, Intergovernmental Affairs Director
OF SJI
0 "
v = ~:_~.,=:-0
PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY AIRPORTS MARISA K. BARRIE, PE
DIRECTOR 1960 JOE CROSSON DRIVE, EL CAJON, CA 92020
(619) 956-4800 FAX (619) 956-4801
www.sdcountvairoorts.com
March 6, 2026
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District Office
7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92108
Attachment A
KATHRYN A. STEWART, PE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
COMMENTS ON CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM MAJOR
AMENDMENT NO. LCP-6-CAR-25-0007-1 (AIRPORT USES)
Dear Chair Cummings and Commissioners,
The County of San Diego (County), as owner and operator of McClellan-Palomar Airport
(Airport), is responding to the City of Carlsbad's (City) proposed amendments to its Local
Coastal Program (LCP) and Zoning Ordinance and General Plan which serve as the
Implementation Plan (IP) for the LCP. By redefining the terms "Airport" and "Airport
Expansion" and taking other actions, the proposed amendments to the LCP and IP seek
to prevent the County from making necessary safety improvements to the Airport in a
manner contrary to Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit-172 (CUP-172), federal law, and
state immunities. The County is submitting these comments in compliance with its
obligations as a federally sponsored airport pursuant to Section 5 of the Sponsor
Assurances to preserve its rights and powers.
I. Commission Authority
The Commission is charged with assuring that proposals by local jurisdictions to amend
an LCP conform to the policy objectives of the California Coastal Act of 1976, Public
Resources Code (PRC), Section 30000, et seq. (Coastal Act). Section 30215 of the
Coastal Act specifies that LCPs are reviewed by the Commission to ensure "conformity
with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200)." As will be detailed
below, the LCP fails to conform to policy objectives in Chapter 3 for public access (PRC
30210), recreation (PRC 30222 & 30223), and development (PRC 30250 & 30252). The
Commission is also charged by Section 30513 of the Coastal Act to ensure IPs conform
with adopted LCPs and are adequate to carry out the provisions of the LCPs. The City's
IPs are inadequate to carry out the LCP because, as it will be shown below, they are
contrary to the County's vested rights under CUP-172, preempted by federal law, and
contrary to the County's immunities.
SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
California Coastal Commission
March 6, 2026
Page 2
II. Inconsistency of LCP with Coastal Act Policy Objectives
Although the City describes these changes as procedural clarifications, they would make
it extremely difficult, costly, and time-consuming for the County to try and meet FAA safety
and operational requirements. Restricting the County's ability to meet FAA standards and
to support current and future users of the Airport constrains the utility of the Airport and
in so doing frustrates public access, recreation, and development policies of the Coastal
Act.
A. Public Access
LCPs are required to be reviewed by the Commission for compliance with the
public access policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requires
that "maximum access" be provided to the coastal zone. Section 30001.5(c) further
explains that it is the policy of the Coastal Act to, "maximize public access to and
along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal
zone .... " The City's LCP would hinder these objectives by making it more difficult
for the County to make safety and facilities changes to the Airport to better
accommodate existing users of the Airport.
Subjecting safety enhancements like installing an EMAS system or acquiring RPZ
to extensive City review requirements and a potential citizen veto to try and prevent
Airport expansion only functions to make it more difficult to utilize the Airport. The
Airport serves thousands of visitors and community members who access the
region's beaches and other coastal zone amenities. The restrictions proposed by
the City make it more difficult for people to access the coastal zone. This is contrary
to the policy objectives of the Coastal Act to maximize public access to the coastal
zone.
B. Recreation
The Coastal Act includes a policy objective to promote the recreational use of the
coastal zone. PRC 30222 prioritizes land uses that "enhance public opportunities
for coastal recreation." This includes, "upland areas necessary to support coastal
recreational uses .... " (PRC 30223.) The City notes that the Airport is outside the
coastal zone, but the effects of the City's proposed regulations will be felt
throughout the coastal zone. By limiting the County's ability to make safety or other
improvements on and off the Airport, the City's LCP will make it harder for visitors
to come to the region and enjoy the recreational opportunities provided at the City's
beaches and other waterfront amenities.
C. Development
To prevent the adverse effects of urban sprawl, Section 30250 of the Coastal Act
prioritizes clustering of development. The Section provides that, "New residential,
commercial, or industrial development. .. shall be located within, contiguous with,
or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it. ... " PRC
30252 promotes the development of transportation infrastructure when it provides,
"[t]he location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance
SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
California Coastal Commission
March 6, 2026
Page 3
public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit
service ..... "
The City's proposed LCP frustrates the provision and extension of transit services
providing access to the coastal zone by restricting the development of the Airport.
Moreover, by limiting development of the Airport, which functions as one of only
two commercial service airports in San Diego County, the City's LCP encourages
the development of other airports in the region that are neither contiguous with or
in close proximity to the Airport.
Ill. IPs Inadequate to Carry Out LCP
The City identified both its General Plan and Zoning Ordinances as constituting the IP
component of the LCP. PRC 30513 provides that the Commission should reject IP
components, including zoning ordinances, where they are inadequate to carry out the
provisions of the certified land use plan." The City's IP is inadequate because the approval
requirements that it seeks to establish are contrary to the County's vested rights under
CUP-172, preempted by federal law, and subject to inter-governmental immunities.
A. Vested Rights
The County obtained CUP-172 for the Airport on September 24, 1980. Section 8
of CUP-172 provides that, "[t]he permitted uses for Palomar Airport are limited to
those as outlined in Table 1.[and that], [a]pproval of any uses not specifically listed
in Table 1 and/or expansion of the airport facility shall require an amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit." The meaning of expansion as used in the CUP was
litigated in Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego (January 26, 2021)
Case No 37-2018-00057624-CU-TT-CR. The Superior Court in its decision held
that, "the Court does agree with the County's interpretation of the term "expansion"
and that no amendment was required on the basis of the proposed changes set
forth in the Project." The project being the Master Plan approved by the County in
December 2021, which includes the EMAS, runway shift, and runway extension,
all on existing Airport property. Improvements which the City would now attempt to
define as expansion contrary to the meaning of the term as used by the parties in
CUP-172 and on which the County has relied for nearly 50 years.
Assuming it were found that the Trial Court's decision is somehow unenforceable,
Table 1 of CUP-172 allows for the installation of EMAS, the runway shift, runway
extension, and other improvements entirely on Airport property by right. Table 1 of
CUP-172 states that, "Airports structures and facilities that are necessary to the
operation of the airport and to the control of air traffic in relation thereto, include,
but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (1) Taxiway and parking aprons,
including lighting .... " The City argues that the exclusion of runways from the list of
facilities in Table 1 means runways are excluded. The plain reading of CUP-172,
however, is to the contrary. The list of improvements provided at Table 1 is a list
of inclusion, not exclusion. CUP-172 clearly states that allowed improvements
"include, but are not necessarily limited to" the listed items. The only factor to be
SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
California Coastal Commission
March 6, 2026
Page4
applied in determining what improvements are allowed is that the improvements
be "necessary to the operation of the airport." Nothing could be more necessary to
the operation of an airport than the runway.
The County has vested rights under CUP-172 to implement improvements which
the City now seeks to define as an expansion requiring City approval and perhaps
a vote of the citizens of Carlsbad. The Commission shou Id reject all portions of the
IPs that seek to interfere with the County's vested rights because under PRC
30513 the City lacks sufficient authority to carry out this portion of its LCP.
B. Federal Preemption
The City's attempt to prohibit runway improvements contemplated in the Master
Plan and the implementation of safety improvements like the acquisition of RPZ
through its IP by requiring prior City approval is preempted. In Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir., 1992) 979 F. 2d 1338,
an airport sponsor brought an action against a city to enjoin enforcement of an
ordinance requiring prior submission and approval by the city of any plans for
development on a parcel of airport land that was used exclusively for airport
landings and takeoffs. The Ninth Circuit held that the city's ordinance was
preempted by federal law; finding that, "[i]t is settled law that non-proprietor
municipalities are preempted from regulating airports in any manner that directly
interferes with aircraft operations." (p. 1340.)
In expanding on what is meant by "aircraft operations" the Ninth Circuit reasoned
as follows: "The problem with this ordinance is that it conditions the construction
and reconstruction of taxiways and runways on the prior approval of the City. This
the City may not do. The proper placement of taxiways and runways is critical to
the safety of takeoffs and landings and essential to the efficient management of
the surrounding airspace. The regulation of runways and taxiways is thus a direct
interference with the movements and operations of aircraft, and is therefore
preempted by federal law." (Id. at p. 1341.) This preemption has broadly been
extended to actions by airport sponsors, such as the County, to meet FAA safety
standards for things like RSA. (See, for example, Tweed-New Haven Airport Auth.
V. Town of East Haven (2008) 582 F. Supp. 2d 261.)
The City's efforts to require prior approval for things like the installation of EMAS,
acquisition of RPZ, a runway shift, and runway extension per the Master Plan is
preempted by federal law. Since the City's IP is preempted from regulating runway,
taxiway and safety projects, the IP is inadequate to implement the LCP to the
extent it attempts to do this and should be rejected by the Commission.
C. Immunities
Government Code section 53090, et seq. establishes broad County immunities
from City land use regulations. This includes City General Plan, Zoning and
building requirements. (See, for example, Lawler v. City of Redding (1992) 7 Cal.
SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
California Coastal Commission
March 6, 2026
Page 5
App. 4th 778.) While it is true that the Trial Court in Citizens for a Friendly Airport,
supra, found the County waived these immunities in conjunction with obtaining
CUP-172. The Court did not and could not find that a waiver given at this time is
sufficient to waive the County's immunities with regard to all subsequent laws,
including those comprising the IP that seek to rewrite and repeal portions of CUP-
172 which the County has relied on for nearly 50 years. To the extent the City
seeks to impose new requirements different from what is in CUP-172, the City
lacks the authority to implement the LCP and the Commission should reject it.
IV. Conclusion
The County thanks the Commission for its careful attention to this matter. County staff
are available for any discussions or further inquiries needed. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please contact Jamie Abbott, Director of Airports, at
Jamie.Abbott@sdcounty.ca.gov.
Sincerely, ~
MARISA K. BARRIE, PE, Director
Department of Public Works
SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV