The Battle Over Palomar Airport

Carlsbad residents object to more flights at Palomar Airport

Commercial Aviation's Return Sparks Regional Conflict Over Local Control

Growth Outpaces Community Expectations at Carlsbad's McClellan-Palomar Airport

The revival of commercial air service at McClellan-Palomar Airport has ignited a contentious battle over aviation governance that highlights fundamental tensions in federal aviation law, regional airport management, and municipal land-use authority. What began as a modest return of scheduled airline service has evolved into a legal and political confrontation that could reshape how California communities interact with federally-regulated airports within their borders.

The Numbers Tell a Story of Rapid Transformation

McClellan-Palomar Airport, situated in the coastal city of Carlsbad in northern San Diego County, has experienced dramatic growth that extends well beyond what residents anticipated when commercial service returned. The facility now handles approximately 480 flights daily, representing a 30% increase over the past decade. The airport is projected to exceed 175,000 total operations in 2025, a substantial jump from the 135,000 flights recorded in 2015 when commercial service previously ended.

More striking than the flight count is the transformation in passenger volume. The county projects 66,202 passengers for 2025, a fourfold increase from the 15,477 passengers recorded in 2024. This exponential growth in passenger numbers, while flight counts increase more modestly, indicates a fundamental shift toward larger aircraft with higher capacity—precisely what residents feared when American Airlines resumed service in January 2024, followed by United Airlines' pending approval.

The airport has been operational since 1959, providing residents with decades of familiarity with aviation activity. However, the character of that activity has changed substantially. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, flight operations increased by 20%. The return of commercial service has accelerated a trend toward larger, more frequent aircraft operations that residents argue fundamentally alters their relationship with airport infrastructure they long accepted as part of their community.

The Jurisdictional Maze

The conflict over Palomar Airport exposes the complex web of overlapping—and sometimes competing—authorities that govern airport operations in the United States. San Diego County manages the airport, Carlsbad serves as the host city with conditional use permit authority, and the Federal Aviation Administration maintains ultimate control over flight operations under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.

This 1990 federal law stripped airports without existing legally binding curfews of their power to enact new ones, leaving Palomar with only voluntary quiet hours: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for jets and midnight to 6 a.m. for propeller aircraft. These voluntary restrictions have proven ineffective. Between January and October 2025, more than 1,000 flights occurred during the designated quiet hours—averaging over three flights per night, with October alone recording 128 flights during curfew hours, or more than four per night.

The county's position is that it has no authority to reject airline service applications that the FAA deems safe, citing potential discrimination concerns. American Airlines' daily service to Phoenix, operated with 76-seat Embraer 175 aircraft, departs at 6:40 a.m., during the voluntary curfew period. United Airlines is seeking approval for four additional daily flights using aircraft with similar or greater capacity.

Carlsbad Mayor Keith Blackburn has asserted the city's land-use jurisdiction, stating in a November 2024 letter: "As the airport's host city, the City of Carlsbad has consistently asserted its role and jurisdiction in making final land use decisions, including for new or expanded airport land uses." This assertion forms the basis of Carlsbad's legal challenge, filed in November 2024, claiming the county's approval of American Airlines service violated the airport's conditional use permit.

Legal Challenges Mount

The legal battle encompasses multiple fronts. Citizens for a Friendly Airport, a local advocacy group, filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit challenging the adequacy of environmental review for the American Airlines service approval. The complaint alleges: "The Project's significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment give rise to Respondent's legal obligation to prepare an environmental impact report specifically for the Project."

Carlsbad's parallel lawsuit focuses on conditional use permit compliance, arguing that the county exceeded its authority by approving commercial service expansion without proper municipal review. The next hearing in the consolidated litigation is scheduled for December 19, 2024, though outcomes remain uncertain given the federal preeminence in aviation matters.

The county has declined to comment on pending litigation, maintaining that current commercial operations require no physical modifications to airport infrastructure. However, this position offers little comfort to residents who view commercial service as the entering wedge for more substantial expansion.

The Twenty-Year Master Plan

The 2021 adoption of a 20-year master plan for Palomar Airport has become a focal point of resident concern. The plan contemplates potentially reclassifying the airport from its current B-II designation, intended for smaller aircraft, to D-III status, which accommodates larger aircraft operating at higher speeds. At the time of the master plan's approval, nearly half of the business jets using the airport already exceeded B-II design standards.

The plan includes extending the single 4,897-foot runway by 200 feet to the east and possibly by 900 feet total, modifications that residents fear would enable Boeing 737-class aircraft operations. The county insists that runway extension alone would not automatically permit such aircraft, and that any classification change requires Carlsbad's approval through conditional use permit modification.

Residents remain skeptical. Dom Betro, representing the Palomar Airport Action Network, articulated the community's concern: "What they're going to do then is they're going to come back and say, 'you know what, you're right. This is a problem, and therefore we need to extend the airport even further. We need a longer runway, we need a bigger airport, because that's what will make this safe.'"

This progression—from safety concerns driving expansion rather than expansion being constrained by safety concerns—represents a fundamental tension in airport planning. The Palomar Airport Action Network estimates that 30,000 Carlsbad residents are affected by airport operations, a substantial portion of the city's population living under or near flight paths that residents claim deviate significantly from established routes.

The Complaint Paradox

Noise complaint data reveals both the intensity of resident concern and the limitations of complaint metrics as policy tools. The county projects nearly 4,000 complaints for 2025, more than 1.5 times the 2,442 complaints recorded in 2024. Propeller aircraft generate the most complaints, peaking at 513 in September 2025, while jets and helicopters each generated fewer than 10 complaints that month.

However, the county applies a controversial methodology, noting that 31% of all complaints come from just three individuals and filtering these "high-frequency complainants" to match the average complaint rate of other residents. This statistical adjustment dramatically reduces the apparent complaint volume, a practice residents view as dismissive of legitimate concerns.

More significantly, residents report widespread abandonment of the formal complaint process. "People give up. They don't get any responses whatsoever to their complaints—never—so it was kind of a waste of time," Betro said. This dynamic creates a data paradox: rising complaint numbers may understate actual community impact if discouraged residents have ceased reporting issues.

The county does not track passengers on private charter flights, creating another data gap that obscures the full scope of airport activity and its community impact.

Regional Context and San Diego International

Palomar's growth trajectory cannot be separated from constraints at San Diego International Airport, the region's primary commercial aviation hub. San Diego International holds the distinction of being the busiest single-runway airport in the United States. Despite completing a nearly $4 billion terminal renovation in November 2024, airport officials acknowledge no feasible path to add a second runway due to the facility's constrained urban location.

This capacity limitation at San Diego International creates pressure to develop alternative facilities. Palomar Airport, with room for expansion and less dense surrounding development than the metropolitan airport, becomes an attractive option for commercial carriers seeking to serve North County markets without navigating San Diego International's congestion.

United Airlines previously provided commercial service to Palomar but withdrew in 2015, citing the switch to larger aircraft that could not operate from the airport's runway. The carrier's return, with larger regional jets, suggests confidence that current or planned infrastructure can accommodate its operational requirements—precisely what residents fear will drive the expansion they oppose.

The Advisory Committee's Limited Mandate

The Palomar Airport Advisory Committee, a nine-member body appointed by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, serves as the primary formal channel for community input. Committee member Shirley Anderson, a Carlsbad resident, captured the community's sense of transformation: "I bought my house knowing what the airport was. I didn't look into the crystal ball to see what the airport could become."

Advisory committee meetings have become notably contentious venues, though the body lacks authority beyond making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. This limited mandate frustrates residents who seek meaningful influence over infrastructure that shapes their daily lives but find themselves relegated to advisory status on decisions made by county officials who do not directly represent Carlsbad constituencies.

Residents sought a meeting with FAA officials to discuss their concerns directly with federal regulators. That meeting, finally scheduled for October 2024, was postponed due to a government shutdown, adding to community frustration with inaccessible decision-making processes.

Implications for Airport Governance

The Palomar Airport conflict illuminates broader challenges in American aviation governance. Federal preemption of noise and capacity restrictions, codified in the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act, was intended to prevent a patchwork of local regulations that could fragment the national airspace system. However, this federal dominance leaves communities with limited tools to shape aviation infrastructure that fundamentally affects local quality of life.

The tension between county management, municipal land-use authority, and federal operational control creates a governance structure where no single entity bears complete responsibility for balancing aviation development with community impact. Counties may lack authority to restrict flights the FAA deems safe. Cities may lack authority over airports they host but do not manage. Federal regulators may lack mechanisms to incorporate local land-use planning into operational decisions.

California's CEQA framework provides one avenue for communities to assert influence through environmental review requirements, though the outcome of the Citizens for a Friendly Airport lawsuit remains uncertain. The conditional use permit mechanism, central to Carlsbad's legal strategy, represents another potential tool for municipal influence, though its effectiveness against federal aviation preemption is untested in this context.

Looking Forward

The December 19, 2024 hearing will provide initial judicial guidance on the balance between municipal land-use authority and county airport management. However, even favorable rulings for Carlsbad may prove pyrrhic if federal aviation authority ultimately preempts local concerns. The United Airlines flights are already being sold online, suggesting confidence in eventual regulatory approval regardless of local opposition.

Residents face a fundamental challenge: mechanisms designed to provide community input—advisory committees, complaint systems, public comment periods—prove ineffective when underlying legal authority resides elsewhere. The airport's 20-year master plan, adopted by the county Board of Supervisors in 2021, provides a framework for growth that may proceed despite municipal and resident opposition.

The Palomar Airport conflict may ultimately test whether California's land-use authorities can meaningfully constrain aviation development, or whether federal preemption and county management authority combine to override municipal control even within city boundaries. For the 30,000 Carlsbad residents affected by the airport, the answer to that question will determine whether they regain meaningful influence over infrastructure that shapes their community, or remain subject to decisions made by entities beyond their democratic reach.

The expansion of commercial aviation at Palomar Airport represents more than a local land-use dispute. It exemplifies the challenges communities nationwide face when infrastructure development proceeds under federal regulatory frameworks that limit local democratic accountability, even when impacts concentrate intensely on specific localities.

---

Sources and Citations

1. Futterman, K. (2024, December). "More flights, bigger planes: The growth of Palomar Airport." inewsource. https://inewsource.org/2024/12/palomar-airport-growth-carlsbad-united-american-airlines/

2. Citizens for a Friendly Airport v. County of San Diego (2024). California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit regarding American Airlines service approval at McClellan-Palomar Airport. [Case details from source document]

3. City of Carlsbad v. County of San Diego (2024). Conditional use permit compliance lawsuit filed November 2024. [Case details from source document]

4. Blackburn, K. (2024, November). Letter to airport officials regarding Carlsbad's jurisdictional authority over McClellan-Palomar Airport land-use decisions. [Referenced in source document]

5. San Diego County (2021). McClellan-Palomar Airport Master Plan: 2021-2041. San Diego County Department of Public Works. [Referenced in source document]

6. Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, 49 U.S.C. § 47521 et seq. (Federal legislation restricting airport curfew implementation)

7. San Diego County Airport Operations Data (2024-2025). Flight operations, passenger counts, and complaint statistics for McClellan-Palomar Airport. [Data from source document]

Note: This article is based primarily on investigative reporting by inewsource and references legal proceedings and government documents cited within that reporting. Additional primary source documents (court filings, master plan, FAA correspondence) would strengthen the citation record but were not directly accessible for this analysis.