Planning commission approves code amendments and procedures to limit airport expansion beyond Palomar Airport boundary

The Carlsbad Planning Commission on Oct. 16 recommended approval of a package of amendments intended to clarify the city's role in any future proposals to expand or alter Palomar Airport. By a 6–1 vote the commission recommended adoption of (1) an addendum to the housing‑element supplemental environmental impact report, (2) general plan, zoning and Local Coastal Program amendments, and (3) procedures to implement Public Utilities Code section 21661.

Assistant community development director Mike Strong told the commission the package would require that any future county proposals to acquire land or expand uses outside Palomar Airport’s current boundary be submitted to the city for public hearings and a decision consistent with state code. Staff framed the measures as clarifying existing law and implementing findings the city has previously expressed in council resolutions opposing airport expansion beyond the current boundary.

Staff reviewed the airport’s history — annexation in the 1970s, conditional use permit (CUP 172) and a series of council resolutions dating to 1984 that oppose runway or boundary expansion — and said the proposed ordinance adds definitions for “airport” and “airport expansion,” restricts airport‑use zoning outside the current airport footprint and establishes procedures that would trigger city review if the county seeks land acquisitions beyond the boundary.

Speakers from neighborhood groups and Citizens for Friendly Airport urged approval. "Tonight we're asking you to take the next step so the city, county and residents never have to go through another ordeal such as this again," Vicky Saje, president of Citizens for Friendly Airport, said in public comment. Dozens of residents described noise and safety concerns in neighborhoods near the airport.

Jamie Abbott, director of airports for the County of San Diego, testified that the county submitted letters to the city arguing that planned Palomar Airport development can be handled within the county's existing CUP authority and that certain aeronautical operations may be federally preempted. "We ask that the commission take our position into consideration," Abbott said.

City legal counsel said the ordinance was drafted to avoid conflict with federal law while clarifying local procedures; staff repeatedly noted there is no county application pending before the city at this time but that the code changes would set the process that would apply if the county files a proposal. Commissioners discussed the balance between preserving local land‑use authority and avoiding preemption conflicts; several members said the package merely sets a process and does not prejudge future applications.

Commissioner Means moved to adopt the staff recommendations — the SEIR addendum, code amendments and PUC‑21661 procedures — and Commissioner Lafferty seconded. The motion passed 6–1 (Yes: Cameron, Stein, Lafferty, Means, Dana, Hoebinger; No: Murs).

The planning commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council, which will consider the amendments and the procedures before any ordinance becomes effective. Staff said the procedures are intended to make the city's role and the county's responsibilities clear if a future airport land‑acquisition or expansion proposal is filed.