HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-30; City Council; ; Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated LitigationMcClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Concerns
April 23, 2024
Page 3
Amending the City Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan to include the definition of "airport
expansion" set forth in Section 21664.5 is also not necessary, as C4FA asserts, to bring City
requirements into compliance with State law. The term "airport expansion" used in Section
21664.5 is limited to the section in which it is contained, it does not establish a generally
applicable definition. Section 21664.5 states in pertinent part that, "As used in this section,
"airport expansion" includes ... acquisition of runway protection zones ... construction of a new
runway ... [and] extension or realignment of an existing runway .... " (Emphasis added.) Since the
definition of airport expansion as used in Section 21664.5 only applies to State-issued airport
permits, the City is free to and has applied its own definition of the term as used in City Ordinance
21.53.015 and CUP-172.
Condition 8 of CUP-172 states that, "Approval 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." City
Ordinance 21 .53.015 enacted by the City-Council on August 12, 1980 in response to a voter
initiative states in pertinent part that, 'The city council shall not approve any zone change,
general plan amendment or any other legislative enactment necessary to authorize expansion
of any airport in the city nor shall the city commence any action or spend any funds preparatory
to or in anticipation of such approvals without having been first authorized to do so by a majority
vote of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election for such proposes." Interpreting the
term expansion used in both CUP-172 and Ordinance 21 .53.015, the City Attorney concluded in
a May 3, 1993 letter that acquisition of property for "clear zone" was not an expansion where it
could be accomplished without the completion of facilities or structures or the redesignation or
rezoning of land.
The May 3, 1993 letter was presented to the Court and was a basis for the Ruling agreeing with
the County's interpretation of the term expansion. The County appreciates that C4FA may be
dissatisfied with this part of the Ruling, but no appeal was taken, and the decision is final. The
County notes that under FAA Grant Assurance 5 it may "not take or permit any action which
wpuld operate to deprive it of any of the rights and powers [necessary to comply with its
obligations as an airport sponsor] ... and will act promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify any
outstanding rights or claims of right of others which would interfere with such performance .... "
City Request for Meeting with FAA
Separately, the County is also acknowledging receipt of a letter from Mr. Chadwick and the City
dated March 27, 2024 requesting that County Airports ask the FAA to convene a community
roundtable "addressing the growing community concerns surrounding aircraft operations at
McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad" and "a perceived increase in aircraft hoise and
deviations from the County's recommended flight procedures." To facilitate this request, the
County will reach out to Senators Butler and Padilla and Representative Levin to address the
request for a community roundtable with the FAA. The FAA maintains sole authority over flight
safety, patterns, and air traffic control at the Airport. While the County is limited in its ability to
enforce measures beyond the VNAP that are outlined for aircraft operations at the Airport,
County staff would be happy to attend to speak to current airport operations within the County's
Sept. 30, 2024 Item #1 Page 4 of 5