Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-06; City Council; 6239; Palomar Airport Expansion - Ballot Initiative""N CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: DEPARTMENT : ua. May City 3V 6, 1980 Council Initial: Dept.Hd. _ _ . . \ Ipy3 • Z\T,T-.y . \/J^f ^J C . Mgr . X2^tx*^ Subject: PALOMAR AIRPORT EXPANSION Ballot Initiative Statement of the Matter Vice Mayor Casler has proposed that the Council take a stand on the subject expansion and that consideration be given to placing a Council initiative on the November ballot. Exhibit Memo from Vice Mayor Casler to Mayor and Council dated 4-22-80 Letter from Palomar Airport Advisory Committee dated 4-11-8=0 Memo from City Attorney to Mayor and Council dated 4-29-80 Letter from Chamber of Commerce dated 4-28-80 Council Action: 5-6-80 No action was taken by Council. REG WOOD CHAIRMAN PALOMAR AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2198 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. CARLSBAD, CALIF 92008 PHONE: (714) 758-6574 April 11, 1980 TO: SUBJECT: Mayor Ronald C. Packard Carlsbad City Council City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Palomar Airport Noise Control Plan and Land Use Compatibility Study On March 11, 1980, as a result of Palomar Airport Advisory Committee recommendation of February 25, 1980, the County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to secure a consultant and proceed with a Palomar Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility Study (ANCLUC) and update of the Master Plan. At the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee meeting of March 24, 1980 the committee passed a motion to request the Carlsbad City Council to withhold any action with respect to Palomar Airport until the ANCLUC study is completed. It is estimated that 12 months will be required to complete the planning process. The ANCLUC study will be funded by a Federal Aviation Administration planning grant and will incorporate a revision and update of the Palomar Airport Master Plan in addition to noise and land use compatibility studies. The consultant will generally be required to: 1. Prepare and process ANCLUC Grant applications. 2. Conduct a comprehensive study of airport noise problems; review existing noise contours and perform noise monitoring as required; prepare predicted contours for 1985, 1990; review existing noise control plans and develop and recommend additional noise control actions. 3. Review the existing land use plan in conjunction with noise study and Master Plan review. Coordinate with appropriate planning agencies to recommend necessary changes and revisions. Mayor Ronald C. Packard Carlsbad City Council -2- April 11, 1980 4. Update the Palomar Airport Master Plan and recommend revisions as may be indicated by changes in demand forecasts or other factors. 5. Review and update the Environmental Impact Report as required. 6. Prepare and print reports, conduct public hearings and public information activities as required. The development of this study will provide a comprehensive review opportunity for the citizens of Carlsbad and for your Council. ^EURjfiE A. FOX, Vice Chairman ir Airport Advisory Committee GF:RWS:bw DATE: April 22, 1980 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: nary Casler SUBJECT: Expansion of Palomar Airport During the local campaign for City Council a major issue emerged in the proposed expansion of Palomar Airport. Citizens uish to participate by initiative in this proposal. Ue have been told that the County is proceeding uith plans for expansion. Therefore I propose 1. That the Council take a stand on expansion so the County may know whether ot not to continue with its plans 2. That the City Attorney propose a Council initiative to be placed on the November ballot. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 1980 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT EXPANSION TO A VOTE The City Council, at your April 15, 1980 meeting, expressed a desire to consider submission of the County's proposed Palomar Airport expansion to a vote of the people. The Council directed that this office prepare a memorandum of law outlining the Council's options in that regard. The California Elections Code Section 4017 provides: "The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes casted on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of voting on a proposition, by ordinance or a resolution." This section empowers the City Council to submit an initiative proposition to the voters without a petition. If the proposition is passed by a majority of the voters, it automatically becomes law and may be only repealed or changed by a vote of the people. Unfortunately, our inquiry does not stop here. As this memo- randum will discuss, while the Council may certainly submit the expansion of Palomar Airport to the voters, the extent to which such an election would be legally binding is not completely clear. As has previously been reported to the Council, the County of San Diego, as an agency of the state government, is not legally subject to the city's building and zoning laws. However, the County of San Diego, by a policy of the Board of Supervisors, has committed themselves to compliance with the reasonable require- ments of local government. The County, of course, has the ability at any time to ignore that policy and the Board of Supervisors could, if they wished, legally override the city's building and zoning processes. In almost all cases, the city would not be able Mayor and City Council -2- April 29, 1980 to legally prevent the County from going ahead with a public project if the County was convinced that it was necessary and was willing politically to override local opposition. As I understand the County's plans, they involve the construction of an additional runway parallel to the existing Airport. In order to accomplish that project it will be necessary for the County to acquire additional property in the City of Carlsbad. Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 provides: "Submission of plan for expansion or enlargement of airport. (a) Prior to the acquisition of land by any political subdivision for the purpose of expanding or enlarging an existing publicly owned airport, the acquiring entity shall submit a plan of such expansion or enlargement to the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the property proposed to be acquired is located. (b) The plan shall show in detail the airport-related uses and other uses proposed for the property to be acquired. (c) The board of supervisors or the city council, as the case may be, shall, upon notice, conduct a public hearing on such plan, and shall thereafter approve or disapprove the plan. (d) Upon approval of the plan, the proposed acquisition of property may begin. (e) The use of property so acquired shall thereafter conform to the approved plan, and any variance from such plan, or changes proposed therein, shall first be approved by the appropriate board of supervisors or city council after a public hearing on the subject of the variance or plan change. (f) The requirements of this section are in addition to any other requirements of law relating to construction or expansion of airports." On its face this section would require the County of San Diego to submit their proposed airport plan to the City Council. The City Council is then required to hold a public hearing upon the plan and determine whether to approve or disapprove it. It is well- settled that inherent in the authority to approve or disapprove is the right to modify or approve conditionally. The County of San Diego may not acquire the land necessary for the expansion Mayor and City Council -3- April 29, 1980 until the plan is approved. There are no cases construing this section but it appears that the Legislature has made airport expansions an exception to the County's right to override city control. The Council will note Section 21661.6 provides for notice and requires a public hearing. It is unclear from the section the exact nature of the hearing but it appears to be similar in many respects to a hearing to rezone property. For years in California the law was well-established that it was not possible to zone or rezone property by initiative. Since the statutes (Government Code Sections 65853-65857) require a noticed public hearing to rezone, and an election would preclude such a hearing, the courts held that an election was not available (Hurst v. City of Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134 (1929)). Recently the California Supreme Court in San Diego Bids. Contractors Assn. v. City Council, 13 Cal.3d 205 (1974) held that a city violates no constitutional prohibition in adopting a zoning measure without notice and hearing and, therefore, could zone by initiative. Zoning by initiative was made legal in California for general law cities when the court held the statutory notice and hearing requirements applied to the Council ordinances and not to initiatives. Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal.3d 587 (1976). If these cases stand, the Council could hold an initiative on the Airport notwithstanding the hearing required by Section 21661.6. Currently pending in the California Supreme Court is the case of Arnel Development Company v. City of Costa Mesa, 159 Cal.Rptr. 542 (1978) which involves the zoning by initiative of a 68 acre site for a regional shopping center. The lower court had ruled that the initiative rezone was not proper since it related to a specific piece of property and a specific project rather than matters of city-wide effect. The case has been argued and, from the court's questions, the attorneys in attendance sensed that the court was more disposed to come down on the side of favoring the initiative. While it seems to me that the rezonings of a very small, individual piece of property could arguably be more appro- priate for a public hearing than an election, something as significant to a community as a major regional shopping center, or an airport expansion, would appear to be legitimate subjects for an election. However, until the court decides Arnel, it is not possible to advise with any certainty whether or not a city may zone by initiative or by analogy submit the Airport expansion plan under Section 21661.6 to a legally binding vote. Since this question directly effects the County, I have asked the County Counsel for his views on the legal questions involved. A representative of that office reports that the Board of Supervisors has voted to make no application for Airport expansion before August. Mayor and City Council -4- April 29, 1980 She indicated that a series of studies were underway and that questions regarding the funding of the expansion have been raised. The County Counsel declined further comment at this time on the basis that the matter is premature and speculative. Given the lack of case authority construing Section 21661.6, we also asked the County Counsel to consider requesting an Attorney General's opinion on whether or not the city can submit the expansion plan to a legally binding vote. The County Counsel has declined. City Attorneys may not request Attorney General's opinions. Members of the State Assembly and Senate may request opinions and it is possible that the Council may wish to pursue that matter further with our local representatives. While the legal effect of an initiative election on the Airport may be open to some question, there is no doubt that the City Council may have a vote on the matter under Section 5353 of the Elections Code. That section provides: "(a) Each city, county, school district, community college district, county board of education, and special district may hold, at any regular election or special election for the purpose of allowing voters within the respective jurisdiction, or a portion thereof, to voice their opinion on substantive issues or to indicate to the local legislative body approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal. (b) An advisory vote will be indicated as such on the ballot as a heading above the ballot proposal and by only the following description: 'Advisory Vote Only.' (c) As used in this section, 'advisory vote1 means an indication of general voter opinion regarding the ballot proposal. The results of the advisory vote will in no manner be controlling on the sponsoring legislative body. (d) An advisory election may be held in territory outside of the jurisdiction of the local entity calling the advisory election if the ballot proposal affects the residents of such territory. The sponsoring legislative body shall determine the territory in which the advisory election shall be held. However, the conduct of an advisory election in such territory shall only be held if a regular election or special election is to be held in such territory and the advisory election can be consolidated with it." Mayor and City Council -5- April 29, 1980 This section empowers the City Council to give the voters an opportunity to voice their opinion on substantive issues before the city. While the results are not legally binding, I have previously advised the City Council that potential legal problems can be minimized if the Council does not elect to proceed with such an election unless they are prepared to be bound by the results. The primary benefit of Section 5353 is that it provides a vehicle for the City Council to ascertain the views of all those persons who will be affected by the proposed Airport expansion. The law requires the City Council to consider not only the residents of Carlsbad, but also the views of all persons affected by their decisions. Subsection (d) of Section 5353 would allow the City Council to fulfill that obligation. There is no similar procedure available in Election Code Section 4017. With an initiative limited to Carlsbad residents, challenges to the election on the basis that a large number of those affected by the outcome were denied a voice in the decision, might result from either the County or the opponents, depending upon the outcome of the election. Utilizing Subsection (d) of Section 5353 would eliminate that possibility. If the Council determines to proceed with an initiative, the question then becomes, what kind? While we have not undertaken an analysis of all the options in that regard, some initial observations can be made. One possibility would be a proposition to rezone the proposed Airport site to some use which does not allow airports. As previously indicated, the County may override local zoning; however, they have a policy to follow it. To my knowledge the County, without exception in the last ten years, has honored their policy. Another possibility would be to submit a proposition that the City Council shall not approve any new airports or the expansion of existing airports. An ordinance which would preclude the Council from approving any plan for the expansion of the Airport, whatever it might be, would raise questions as to its validity in view of the extensive nature to which it would bind future Councils. A third option would be to submit the plan itself to a vote. The problem with that is at this point the County has not applied for any expansion of the Airport and, in fact, is conducting a series of studies on the nature of that proposed expansion and is not altogether certain whether or not the County will elect to proceed. Perhaps some combination of these measures would be in order and there are other possibilities as well. If the Council wishes to proceed with an election, we will do additional research and report further on this matter. Mayor and City Council -6- April 29, 1980 We understand that the City Council does not wish to call a special election. The next date for a regular municipal election is November. The City Clerk reports that the deadline for placing a ballot measure on the November ballot is August 22, 1980, so it appears there is ample time to work with the Council on the exact nature of the ballot measure. There are a number of reasons for the Council to wait until July or August to call the election. Deferring action preserves the option that the County may be persuaded by the opponents of expansion to modify their plans or abandoned them. An election in that case might not be necessary. In addition, the County may have a definite plan which could allow a more focused vote. Finally, we may have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Arnel before we have to finalize our recommendation on an appropriate ballot measure. In summary, it appears the Council has essentially two options-- an advisory vote or an initiative. Whether or not the initiative might be legally binding depends on Arnel and is something that could ultimately take litigation to resolve. The advisory vote avoids that problem and would allow all those potentially affected to have a voice in the decision. The City Council could indicate its intention and be bound by the results and the people, of course, would retain the right to use the referendum process if they were dissatisfied with the Council's judgment when and if the County comes forward with the proposed plan for an expansion. If the Council wishes to proceed with an election, it is my recommendation that you appoint a Council Committee to work with our office in developing the proposition for the ballot. We ask Council to act with the understanding that, unless it is necessary to meet the August deadline, we will not return until after the Arnel case has been decided. At that time the Council could decide on which of the two options—advisory or initiative—to pursue and determine the terms of the proposition. \ VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. \ City Attorney \J VFB/mla CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POST OFFICE BOX 1605 • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • (714) 729-5924 April 28, 1980 Mayor Ronald C. Packard City of Carlsbad City Hall, 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Dear Mayor Packard and City Council Members: The Executive Committee of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce earnestly solicits the Carlsbad City Council, in their review of the possible expansion of the Palomar Airport, to refrain from making a decision which would restrict further consideration of the proposed second runway, until completion of the Environ- mental Impact Report and the FAA funded Noise Study. We feel these studies will provide valuable data on which the Council can make a decision. The question of a second runway appears to have considerable economic and social impacts both now and in the future and that any decision made prior to the receipt of these final reports would not be in the best interest of the total community. A number of safety questions, as well as social and economic questions should be answered in these studies. There could be some questions of legal responsibilities on the City of Carlsbad should the expansion of the airport be terminated now and a major air traffic accident occur in the future. If you have any questions or would seek further input from the Chamber, please contact me, or Don Brown. Sincerely, ftis rent 1980 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - OFFICES. ELM AVENUE AT OLD SANTA FE DEPOT