HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Comprehensive Land Use Plan (McClellan-Palomar Airport); 1994-04-01COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN
McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Adopted April, 1994
San Diego
U
-ASSOCm OF GOVERNMENTS
First Interstate Plaza
40% B Street Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(61 9) 595-5300
This -port was financed with SANDAG local funds.
MEMBER'AGEMES: Cities 6f Carbbad, Chuk Vistd, Cmonado,hI Mar, El C.jon, Eacirrit.s; Escondido, Imperial Baath, La Masa.
Lemon Groue, National CRY, Oceandde,.Powry, Sur Diego, Sin Mmos,. $antee, Solano Beach. Vista, and.County of Sin Diego.
YADVISORWUAISON MEMBERS: CclifotrtM 'bp8flmbnt at Trmsportatron, U;S;.D.partrnent of Dafmea, .nd TiiurnJBW Caliimi8.
Board of Directors
SAN DIEGO ASSOClATlON OF GOVERNMENTS
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by
local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. Voting members include the incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside,
Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members include Cattrans, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, and Tijuana/Baja Califomia/Mexico.
CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Gloria McClellan VICE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Mike Bixler SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sultcr
CITY OF CARLSUAD Hon. Bud Lewio, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Julianns hygaard, Councilmember
clly Of CHUIA VISTA Hon. Leonard Moore, Ccuncilmamber
(A) Hon. Tim Nodor, Mayor
CITY OF CORONADO
Hon. Mary Herron. Mayor
(A) Hon. Thomar Smirek, Councilmember
ClTV Of DEL MAR
Hon. Elliot Parks, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mark Vihitehead. Councilmember
Crrv OF U CAJON Hon Hornet Stockwell, Councilmomber
(A) Hon. Mark Lewir, Mayor Pro Tam
(A) Hon. Richard Ramor, Councilmember
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
Hon. Gail Hano, Mayor (A) Hon. Mzura Wiegand, Councilmember
ClTV OF ESCONDIDO
Hon. Jerry Harmon, Mayor
(A) Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler. Councilmember
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Mike C)rxler, Mayor (A) Hon. Mea Goethe, Councilmember
CITYOFLAMESA
Ho*i. Art Msdrrd, Mayor
(A) Hon. Barry JanQ, Cauneilmember (A) Won. Jay LaSuer. Counalmember
CITY OF LEMON QROVE Hon. Bnen Cochran, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jerome Legerton, Councilmember
-
moFmnowLcnv Hon. Rosalie Zarete, Councilmember (A) Hon. Michael Dalla, Vice Mayor
ClTVOFOCLANIlDE ' Hon. Dick Lyon, Mayor
(A) Hon. Nancy York, Councilmember
-. c
..
CITY OF POWAY Hon. Don Higginron, Mayor
(A) Hon. Bob Emery, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember
.I
ClTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Judy McCarty, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Barbara Warden, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Valerie Stellingo, Councilmember
ClTY OF SAN MARCOO Hon. Lee Thibdeau, Mayor (A) Hon. Mark Loacher, Councilmnmber
ClTY OF SANTEE
Hon. Jack Dale, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember
Crpy OF 8OUNA BEACH Hon. Marion Dodson, Councilmember (A) Hon. Paul Tompkinr, Mayor (A) Hon. Joe Kellejirn, Councilmember
CfTY OF VISTA
Hon. Glona E. MdCIellan, Mayor (A) Hon. Scott Packard, Councilmember
COUNTY Of SAW OIEQO
Hon. Brian Btlbray, Supe~ror
(A) Hon. Pam Slater, Chair (A) Hon. John MacDonald. Supe~roc
8TATlE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
(Adwrory Member)
Jmer van Loben Sele, Director
(A) Gary Gallegor, Rrtnct 11 Director
US. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (breon Mombar)
CAPT. Tom Gunn. CEC, USN Commanding Othcer Southwert Division Navel Fecilit~er Engmoenny Command
8AN DIEGO UNIFIED ?OR1 DISTRICT
Udweory Member)
Jeer Van Downtar, Commiauoner
TLJUANAMA CAUCORNIAIMEXICO (Advieory Member) Hon. Hector G. OOUM Jaime
Preoidente Municipal de njuane
. ..
San Diego ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
First Interstate Plaza, Suite 800
401 B Street San Diego, California 92101
(619) 595-5300 FU (619) 595-5305
RESOLUTION
No.
94-64
ADOPTION OF THE COMPREE3ENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
WHEREAS, SANDAG is designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for
the San Diego Region pursuant to the State of California Public Utilities Code, Article 3.5,
Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 9; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG has prepared a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare of the
region’s citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport
was prepared with input from the McClellan-Palomar Airport Advisory Committee and the Cities
of Carlsbad, Enchitas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 22, 1994, to take testimony on
the Plan’s findings and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG has determined that there will be no significant
environmental impact caused by the implementation of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the San Diego Association of
Govemments, serving as the Airport Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region, hereby
adopts the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar ,Airport.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 1994.
ATTEST CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER AGENCIES: Citior of Cartrbad. Chula Wrt.. Corofudo. Dol Mar. El CM. Enciniru. beenddo . , Imporid Bo.eh. L. Mau. Lrmon Grow. National Cw. Ot..nrido.
Poway. San Diego. SUI Muwr. antoe, Sda~ 8.d. wsta and County d S.n -0.
ADVlSORY/LlAlSON MEMBERS: California DepMmont dtran~bon, U.S. D.pubnont d W.nw and TijuaWbia California.
San Diego ASSOCIATIOiw OF GOVERTMEhTS
Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza
40: a Street
San Diego. Califortifa 31101
(6!9)595-5300 Fax (6193595-5305
TO THE CmYS OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION
In 1970, the State Legislature created Airport Land Use Commissions in &i county within the state.
The following year, SANDAG was recognized a~ the agency empowered to serve as the Airport
Land Use Commission for the San Diego Region.
Serving as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), it is the responsibility of SANDAG to
prepare Comprehensive Land Use Plans, based on aircraft Drodud noise and flight activity
considerations, for each airport within the region. The C~mprehensivc Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport was prepred by SANDAG with review by the Palomar AWrt Advisory
Committee and the City of Grlsbad staff. The plan is based on the noise COntOUrS prepad for San Diego County.
The plan remmmendations for aciriewmg compatible land uses for the Cities of Carlsbad, Enchitas,
Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County of San Diego include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prohibit incompatible uses within the Area of Influence, as defrd by this plan.
Use this plan to review pertinent proposals for revision of the Gemeral Plans of Carlsbad and
the County of San Diego.
Adopt an ordinance making the requirements of the existing and applicable Cdifarnia Noise
Insulation Standards (CAC, Title 25) apply to single family detached residences in the same
manner as they are applied to multiple family residences, hotels, motds, and &er buildings
addressed in that law.
Direct the appropriate County Department to record the location of any aircraft accidents
within five miles of the airport property boundaries.
Review the assumptions and fe of aircraft Operations am! update the existing and
projected Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEC) every iive years or when
warranted.
Successful implementasl *on of this plan will require the axymat~ 'an of the City of Carlsbad and the
County of San Diego, SANDAG Serving as the ALUC, and the aircraft owners and pilots operathg
at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
GLORIA McCLBUN
Chairwoman, Board of Directors
iii
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar. El Caw, Encinitas, Escondido. Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lem Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Sanlee, Sdana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORYUAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation. US. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, and Tijuana(Baja California.
ABSTRACT
TITLE:
AUTHOR:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
ABSTRACT:
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport
San Diego Association of Governments
Land Use Compatibility Surrounding
McClellan-Palomar Airport
April, 1994
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
67
This report has been prepared to assist in
ensuring compatible land use development in
the area surrounding McClellan-Palomar
Airport. The plan contains the Airport’s Influence Area, the noise impact notifkation
area, projected noise contours, clear zones,
flight activity zone, land use compatibility
matrix, and plan recommendations.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................ 3
3 The Airport Land Use Commission ...................
McClellan-Womar Airport ........................ 5
II. AIRCRA.€TOPERATIONS .......................... 5
III. AIRPORTINFLUENCEAREA........................ 7
7 IV. NOISECONTOURS.. .............................
V. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES, FUGHT ACTM'IY ZONE,
ANDAIRSAFETY ............................... 11
11 Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) ....................
Flight Activity Zone ............................ 12
Noise Compatibilty Program ....................... 13
Noise Impact Notification Area ..................... 13
VI. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND NON-CONFORMING
USES ........................................ 15
VII. PLANRECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 16
Recommendations for Actions by the Cities of Carlsbad,
Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County
County of San Diego ..........................
of Governments (ALUC) .......................
16
17
Recommendations for Action by the San Diego Association
Vm. ALUCDE,VELOPMENTREVIEWPROCESS.. ............. 17
IX. PLANUPDATE 18 .................................
ix
APPENDICES:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
EXISTKNG AND FORECAST AVERAGE DAY AIRCRAFT MIX . .
AVERAGE DAY FLXGHT TRACK UTILIZATION -
ARRIVALS, DEPARTURES, AND "ING BY
NUMBERANDPERCENTAGE .......................
RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT AND NOISE
MITIGATION MEASURES, THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE
FOR IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE APPROXMATE
STARTDA TES..................................
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR), PART 77 FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RULES AND REGULATIONS AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION. . . . . . . . . . . . .
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION . . .
NOTICE CONCERNING AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1995 NOISE CONTOURS, RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE,
ANDFLIGHTACTLVITYZONE ......................
21
23
25
37
39
51
65
67
X
LIST OF FIGURES
4
Figure 2 Airport Influence Area ........................ 6
Figure 1 Existing Regional Airports System .................
Figure 3 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix .......... 9
Figure 4 Noise Impact Notification Area ................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Development Within Airport Noise Levels ............ 11
xi
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
d Use Commission
In 1970, the State of California enact- a law requiring the formation of an Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) in each county containing a public airport. According to
Chapter 21675 of the California Public Utility Code, it is the responsibility of the
Commission to:
"formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly
pwth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the
jurisdiction of the Commission, and will safeguard the general welfm of the
inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The
Commission plan shall be based on a long-range master plan or an airport
layout plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department
of Transportation, that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at
least the next 20 years. In formulating a land use plan, the Commission may
develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land, and may
determine building standards, including sound-proofing adjacent to airports,
within the planning area."
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote on December 15, 1970,
recommended that the San Diego Association of Governments be designated to assume the
responsibilities of an Airport Land Use Commission. A similar resolution was passed and
adopted by the Selection Committee of Mayors of the San Diego County Region on
February 8, 1971. The Secretary of State was notified of this determination on
February 25, 1971, and an acknowledgement of this determination was received from the
Secretary of State's office on March 2, 1971.
SANDAG, as the Airport Land Use Commission for the San Diego'Region, has approved
and adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) for Montgomery Field, Brown Field,
Oceanside, Gillespie and palomar Auports, and NAS mar. A draft CLUP for
Ramona Airport is under review. This CLUP for McClellan-Palomar Airport will replace
the original CLUP adopted for McClellan-Palomar in 1986. (See Figure 1 for locations
of public airports.)
3
P
FIGURE 1
EXISTING REGIONAL
AIRPORTS SYSTEM
0 Military
Publlc
A Prlvrte
A HOFFMAN
A FLYING T
1 A WARD RANCW
CLARK LAKE RADIO A 9UTTERFlELD OAKS OBSERVATORV A A LYALL-ROBERTS
A PAUMA VALLEY
A SLACKINTON A WARMERS BORREGO VALLEY
OCOTILLO WELLS
A CORDELL'S IRONWOODS
RAMONA
BUTTERFIELD A OWVEns A RANCH
RANCHO A m AGUA CALiENTE VALCECITO : I
SAW DIEGO AIR
McClellan-Palomar Aupo 'rt
The McClellh-Palomar Airport is located within the corporate limits of the City of
Carlsbad, approximately five miles southeast of the Carlsbad Village. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the airport as a general utility facility, an airport
mainly serving aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,000 pounds or less.
However, some aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds, but less than 6O,OOO, do operate at the
airport.
The North County area served by McClellan-Palomar Airport is the fastest growing
portion of the region. It is expected to increase from its 1986 population of 481,335 to
over 861,786 by the year 2000, an increase of 55.8 96. Employment is forecast to increase
from 196,482 to 343,310, a 57.2% increase. The rapid growth in employment is due
largely to the extensive industrial development taking place in the North County, much of
it located around the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Industrial development was encouraged
by local agencies to ensure that the land use change from agriculture to more intensive
uses would remain compatible with the operation of the airport.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is to identify areas likely to
be impacted by noise and flight activity created by aircraft operations at the airports. This
update was required to keep the CLUP current. It was prepared in cooperation with the
County of San Diego, using the County's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program.
This Plan should pennit the reader to determine if a particular property is impacted by
aircraft-produced noise or flight activity, what the land use or construction implications
are, and mitigation measures needed to pennit development that is compatible with airport
operation.
Figure 2 in the Plan identifies the areas impacted by aircraft operations from the airport.
The narrative includes the plan assumptions, the area of influence, noise contours, clear
zones, flight activity zone, the noise compatibility program, the ALUC review process,
and recommendations. The ALUC rules and regulations, including definitions, are
contained in the Appendix, followed by a list of References.
The recommendations contained in this report apply to both the current situation at
McClellan-Palomar Airport and to future operations as well.
JI. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
There were 380 aircraft based at McClellan-Palomar Airport in 1992. Most of its 225,000
annual (1992) operations' involve single engine aircraft. Current operations produce noise
impacts on the surrounding area. With the forecasted increase in North County population
and employment, aircraft operations are expected to increase to about 290,000 by 1995.
The area of noise impact will stay about the same with the increase in aircraft opexations
'Each takeoff and each landing is defined as one operation.
5
h' Flight Activity Zone
Airport Influence Area
Figure 2
McClellan Palomar-Airport
Airport Influence Area
and change in aircraft mix. This Plan provides guidance in land use development to assure
future compatible uses.
The future aircraft operations shown in Appendix A were developed by the consulting firm
of KPMG Peat Marwick for the County of San Diego. These data were used by the consultants to determine projected noise contours. (The consultant's report is available for
review at the San Diego County Public Works Department, Airports Division.) Appendix
A shows the mix of aircraft by type and percent of operations by each type.
III. AIRPORTI["CEAREA
The ALUC establishes an Airport Influence Area for each airport in the region. The
Influence Area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impacted by
noise levels exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions
would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as outlined in Federal
Aviation Administration regulations. It represents the boundary of the ALUC's planning
and review authority. The ALUC procedure ensures a regional overview to protect the
airport's operations and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.
.
The McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area is shown on Figure 2. The cities of
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, through their community planning
processes and zoning ordinances, retain land use control within the Airport Influence Area.
IV. NOISE CONTOURS
In California, the technique used for quantifying aircraft noise is the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL). The CNEL is a descriptor of daily noise environment. It
accounts for the magnitude, the time of day, and the frequency of occumnce of noise
intrusions. The CNEL is calculated from the hourly noise by a foxmula prescribed in the
California Noise Standards. The outside boundaries of the areas generally subject to such
noise are usually portrayed by lines overlaid on a map of the a& around the airport.
These boundary lines are referred to as "noise contours". The noise contours provide one
of the bases for delineating the airport's Area of Influence. Individual contours appear on
the map because the noise is loudest at the airport and dissipates at varying distances away
from the airport depending on the location of the flight activity, the types of aircraft
involved, and topography.
The 60 and 65 CNEL contours are important because each of them has a different
si@icance in developing compatible land uses around an airpofi. The 60 CNEL contour
is important because the California Noise Insulation Standads, which became effective on
August 22, 1974, state that residential structures (aU dwellings other than detached single
family dwellings) which are located within the 60 CNEL contours require an acoustical
analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit intruding noise to levels
which would not interfere with speech or sleep. This contour does not define a land area
in which residential uses are unsuitable. Rather, the contour identifies an area in which
7
a mitigation measure may have to be utitized to reduce’ the impact of aircraft noise on
dwelling units other than single family detached.
The 65 CNEL contour is the value defined by the adopted State Noise Standards which
identifies the noise impact boundaq of airports; that is, a boundary within which the noise
environment is not suitable for residential use. Other non-residential uses are generally
suitable within the contour.
The 70 CNEL contour defines a boundary within which the area is not suitable for
numerous land uses. CNEL’s above 70 are not projected far beyond the airport boundary.
Active, outdoor recreation, commercial uses and manufacturing uses are acceptable.
CNEL’s above 75 remain within the airport boundary.
Figure 3 presents the range of land uses compatible with various projected annual
CNEL’s. It can be used to determine the appropriateness of various planned land uses.
McClellan-Palomar Airport, with the level of operations and CNEL’s projected, should
not be limiting to the uses permitted by San Diego County’s or Carlsbad’s General Plans
within the Area of Influence.
The area immediately surrounding the airport is planned for industrial and commercial
uses, which are compatible with the noise levels forecast around the airport. Residential
uses are planned in the area south of the airport. Homes may, therefore, be impacted by
noise within the 60 CNEL. Mitigation measures, such as air conditioning to allow
windows to remain closed, would be appropriate to reduce the noise level inside these
homes.
A review of cumnt land use and general plan data summarized on Table 1 shows little
noise impact currently on existing uses. Several parcels lie within the 60 to 65 CNEL.
The majority of the area impacted is planned for single family uses with the remainder
planned for multiple residential; future development will require noise attenuation studies
for these units.
8
FIGURE 3 McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
NOISULAND USE COMPATlBlLlTV MATRIX
AND USE
. OVrOOORAMPHrrnEATERS
2. NATURE PRESERVES, WILDLIFE PRESERVES, WESTOCK FARMINQ, NEtOHBORH000 PARKS AND PUYQROUNDS
3. SCHOOLS, PR!€SCHOOLS, UeRARlES
4. RESIMNnAL4lNQLE FAMILY, MULTIPLE FAMILY
WlL€ HOMES, RESIDENTLAL "s, REnREMENT HOMES, INERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES. HOSPITALS NURSINQ HOMES
5. HOTELS AND MUlElS. OTHER TRANSIENT LODQINQ, AUDTTORIUMS, CONCERT HAUS,
INDOOR ARENAS, CHURCHES
6. OFFICE BUILMNQSBUSINESS, EDLJCAl"AL, PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL SERVICES, R&D OFFICES AND uBocuTORlES
7. RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION FACILITIES, REQIW PARKS AND ATHLmc
FIELDS, CEMETERIES, AND OUTDOOR
SPECTATOR SPORTS
B. COMMERCIAL-RETAIL; SHOPPINO CEm, RESTAURANTS. MWIETHEATERS
10. AORlCULTURE (UCEPT ~IDENCES AND
WESTOCIQ, MTRACTM NDUSTRY, F18HIN0, UTILITIES, a PUBLIC R-O-W, AND GOLF COURSES
0
n
9
AIRPORT NOISElLAND USE COMPATtBUIY MATRIX
IMPLEMENTATION DIRECTIVES
All the uses specified are "compatible" up to the noise level indicated. Specified uses are ais0 dowed as
"conditionally compatible" or "interior only, conditionally compatible" in the noise levels shown if two
rpecific conditions are met and certified by the local general purpose agency:
Proposed buildings will be noise attenuated to the level shown on the matrix based on an acoustical study
submitted along with buildmg plans.
In the case of discretioxmy actions, such M approval of subdivisions, zoning chmgea, or conditional use
permits, M avigation casement for noise shall be required to be recorded with the County Recorder as
a condition of approval of the project. A copy of the recorded casement is to be fled with the .ffected
airport operator. For dl property trans8&ons. appropriate legal notice shll be given to d purchsen,
lessees and renters of property in "conditiody compltible" or "interior only, conditionally compatible"
areas which clearly describes the potential for impacts from airplane noise mlociatcd with airport opera-
tions. Notice also will be provided as required on the state Real Btate Disclosure fonn.
Identified uses proposed in noisier areas than the level indicated on the matrix arc conaidered "incompatible. "
The directives below relate to the specific "conditionally comptiile" lad usecategories identified by number
on the matrix.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
New schools, preschools d liimries located within the CNEL 6065 contours mult be subjected to
M acoustical rtudy to MSU~ that interior levels will not exceed CNEL 45.
New residential md related uses located within the CNEL 60-65 cantours must be abjectad to an
acoustical study to assure that interior lev& will not excd CNEL 45. Appropriate legal notice shall
be provided to purchasers, lessees, d renters of properties in thja codaiody compatible zone.
"Rcdidential hotels" ue defined M thote that have 75% or more of .ccommod.tionr occupied by
permrnent guests (staying more than 30 days) or those hotels which have at least 50 percent of their
accommodrtioqr containing kitchens.
Transient Lodging is defined aa hotels and motela, membership lodgings (Y's, etc.), suite or .putmeet
hotels, hostels, or other tcmporrvy rwidence units, not defined rn residential hotels, above. Within
the CNEL 60-70 contours, buildings must be subjected to M acoustical rtudy to mmre that interior
levels do not exceed CNEL 45. Appropriate legal notice ahall be provided to purcb~en, lesreer, md
renters of propsties in this conditionally comp.tible zone.
Office buiiigs include many typer of office d service uses: busws d buriwss servica;
finance, iusuMce, red esw, personal services; professional (medical, legal d educuionrl);.d
government, rereuch d development d othen. Withia the CNEL 65-70 contours, buildinga must
be rubjected to UI acoustical study to assure that interior levels do not exd CNEL 50. Appropriate
legal notice shll be provided to purchasers, lessees, and renters of properties in thia coditiody
compltibfe mne.
For new commerchl retail uses located within the CNU 65-75 cmtoum, buildigs rrrmt be Nbjected
to aa acoustical study to UN~ that interior levels do not exceed CNU 50. Approprh legal notice
rhdl be provided to purchasers, less-, d tenters of proptrties in thb conditionally compdile
zoae.
10
Table 1
CNEL
Year
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AIRPORT NOISE LEVELS
McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
60-65 65-70 70 or More mm m2MM 19842pMT
Total Population 331 826 2 92 0 0
Household 331 826 2 92 0 0
Group Quarters 0 0 0 0 0 0
Occupied Housing Units 179 426 1 44 0 0
Single Family 93 298 1 44 0 0
Multi-Family 0 38 0 0 0 0
Civilian Employment 2,285 3,754 218 505 434 1,242
Note: New multi-Family dwellings will require noise attenuation studies.
Sources: SANDAG Regional Growth Fomasts, Series 7 and Carlsbad General Plan,
1985
V. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES, FLIGHT ACTIVITY ZONE,
ANDAKRSAFETY
It is one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to preclude incompatible
development from intruding into areas of significant risk resulting from aircraft takeoff and
landing patterns. For the purposes of this report, such areas of significant risk are
identifed as "Zones" and 'Wight Activity Zone. " They are delineated on Appendix H and
Figure 2, along with accident data in the vicinity of the airport.
Runway Prowion Zones
The Runway Protection Zones for McClellan-Palomar Airport are the land areas adjacent
to the ends of the runway's primary surface, over which aircraft using the airport must
pass for each opemtion, either arrival or departure. The zones reflect the dimensions of
the airport as promulgated by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (Obstruction Hazards)
and Part 152 (Runway Protection Zones). The RPZ is an "area at ground level that begins
at the end of each primary surface ... and extends with the width of each approach surface . . . to terminate directly below each approach surface slope at the point, or points, where
the slope reaches a height of 50 . . . feet above the elevation of the runway end or 50 feet
above the terrain at the outer extremity of the clear zone, whichever is shorter."
11 .
Because the RPZ’s lie mainly on the airport property, they are mostly protected from
private development.
The only land uses considered to be compatible with the restrictions quired of the RPZ’s
are:
1. Natural Recreation Areas or Habitat and Species Preservation Areas.
2. Public rights-of-way.
3. Agriculture, except livestock, and sand and gravel extraction.
4. Storage facilities, not including flammables, explosives and corrosives, and low
intensity land uses characterized by a low number of employees and customers per
square foot of building area.
Areas immediately adjacent to the airport in every direction are zoned with a height limit
of 35 feet. This height limit could assure that new construction will not penetrate either
the approach surfaces at the runway ends or the transitional surfaces along the length of
the runway. However, the 35-foot height limit allows an aveqgg height of 35 feet (e.g.,
an average of a sloping mfline could be 35 feet, although the mfline could slope from
25 feet to 45 feet). Additionally, penthouses, smokestacks, etc., can extend higher than
35 feet. These zoning requirements axe not adequate to protect the approaches to the
airport runways. For this reason, the approval of an industrial subdivision west of the
airport included conditions set by the City of Carlsbad: meet the height limitation set by
FAR Par& 77 and also limit the uses to warehouses and some office uses in the area
immediately west of the airport.
Activitv Zone
The additional air safety considerations axe shown graphically in the CLUP as Flight
Activity Zones. They are based upon the data presented in the 1974 CLUP as amended
and the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program which identified areas where most
problems may be expected to occur, namely the normal flight patterns (see Appendix B).
Thus, the areas most likely to experience a crash remain those beneath the flight pattern,
especially in the final approach to the runway. These are the areas identified as flight
activity hazard areas in the 1986 CLUP.
Both the CNEL contours and the Flight Activity Zone am &lineated on the pocket map
to indicate areas of land use concern. The land uses compatible with the greatest levels
of noise are not identical with uses compatible with increased flight activity, in the areas
under the final approaches to Runway 24 and to Runway 6.
The Flight Activity Zone overlays private properties. It identifies land areas which should
be held free of intensive development (for example, more than ten dwelling units per
acre), including high rise development and all uses which involve the assembly of large
12
groups of people (more than 100). This zone should be used as a guide in consideration
of any proposed increase in density or high rise development. It also sho&d be used in
review of assembly-type uses, which usually quire a conditional use pemit from the land
use agency. The City of Carlsbad should find such uses to be inappropriate in the Flight
Activity Zone, by finding them to be incompatible with this CLUP.
Noise Co mpatibilitv Program
The County of San Diego as the airport operator has recently completed a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) sponsored noise compatibility program for the airport. Appendix
C contains a summary of the recommended program and a copy of the FAA’s approval
of the program.
Noise Impact Notification Area
The Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA) is the area most impacted by aircraft
operations to and from McClellan-Palomar Airport. This area represents nearly 90% of
all noise and overflight related complaints from area residents. Much of the noise in this
area occurs on an irregular basis, and is often called single event noise. This type of
noise, although not generally considered a health or safety issue, may be a nuisance.
Physically, the NINA is composed of a three mile radius around the ahport, as well as the
VOR and ILS corridors to the west and east, respectively, and extends both horizontally
and vertically due to terrain considerations. The NINA incorporates class D airspace, as
well as the approach corridors. As such, it corresponds to an area shown on aeronautical
maps familiar to pilots.
This area has also been recognized by the 1990 Part 150 Noise study conducted for
McClellan-Palomar. Airport, which is the basis for federal government (FAA) participation
in the acquisition of a noise monitoring system at the airport. The noise monitor allows
for systematic recording and empirical analysis of noise and overflight in the area and
establishes validation procedures for noise contours, the noise abatement area and the
newly creatd NINA.
To ensure that new residential discretionary projects are conditioned to notify new property
owners of their proximity to the airport, and that their property may be subject to aircraft
overflight operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the NINA has been established.
All new residential projects located within the NINA, as shown on Figure 4 (attached),
shall be required to record a notice concerning aircraft environmental impacts, clarifying
that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar (see Appendix G for a sample form).
13
Figure 4
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Noise Impact Notification Area
VI. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND NON-CONFORMING USES
The Carlsbad General Plan, under update in 1992, is consistent with this CLUP. There
is a problem relating to the 65 dB CNEL line south of Palomar Airport Road. This area
is planned for residential use on the Carlsbad General Plan; the area will require specific
project review to assure that any development proposed is compatible with the CLUP.
The ony other areas of land use concern relate to height limits and hazard zones. Because
the Carlsbad zoning ordinance does not specifically limit the height of rooftop
appurtenances, there is no assurance that new construction will not create hazardous
conditions near the airport. This concern was addressed in the approval of the industrial
subdivision west of the airport, by requiring adherence to the FAR Part 77 guidelines.
The area east of the airport, especially along the ILS approach, is not so protected. It will
be necessary for the City of Carlsbad and San Marcos to review heights of all structures
to ensure that they conform to the FAR Part 77 guidelines, using the site development plan
review procedure.
The City of Carlsbad has established an overlay mne for the ALUC-designated Area of
Influence. The procedure requires that all parcels of land located in the Airport Influence
Area obtain either a site development plan, planned industrial pennit, or other discretion-
ary permit and to comply with the noise standards of the CLUP and to meet FAA
requirements with respect to building height and the provision of obstruction lighting when
appurtenances are permitted to penetrate the transitional surface (a 7 to 1 slope from the
runway primary surface). It would be appropriate for the FAA guidelines to be made a
part of the zoning requirement around the airport, so that building designers are made
aware of these concerns in advance of design. It could reduce the possible need for
obstruction lighting on new construction adjacent to the airport. The community plan
should continue to designate land uses consistent with this CLUP.
In order to be protected from inappropriate land uses not readily coved by the criteria
of this CLUP, one additional concern must be addressed. Any use, whether within or
outside the defined Airport Influence Area, found to be an "obstruction" by the FAA,
should be determined not to be in conformance with the CLUP. Such a provision would
assure that approval of a discretionary use (such as a very high smokestack in an industrial
area) which might otherwise be considered acceptable, would not create a hazard to the
operation of the airport. The FAA has no authority to limit land use and can only direct
that changes be made in airport operations when the determination of a "hazard" is made.
Therefore, the CLUP would be the determining factor by indicating that such a use would
not be in conformance with the Plan.
15
VII. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Recommendations for Actions 1 d Vi M d
Oceanside. and the Cou ntv of San Dieg
1. Prohibit incompatible uses within the Airport Influence Area, as defined by this plan,
including inappropriate heights which would penetrate the 34:l airport approach
surface which extends 10,OOO feet to the east.
2. Use this plan to review pertinent proposals for revision of the General Plans of
Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside.
Include, as part of the General Plans' implementing ordinances, a provision for
assurance that no construction permitted in the vicinity of McClellan-Palomar
Airport will constitute an "obstruction" as determined by FAA.
3. Adopt an ordinance making the requirements of the existing and applicable
California Noise Insulation Standads (CAC, Title 25) apply to single family
detached residences in the same manner as they are applied to multiple family
residences, botels, motels, and other buildings addressed in that law.
4. Direct the appropriate County Department to record the location of aircraft accidents
within five miles of the airport propexty boundaries.
5. Review the aircraft mix assumptions and forecasts of aircraft operations, update the
existing and projected CNELs, and reevaluate the impacts of noise summarized in
Appendix A in five years or when warranted.
6. The County of San Diego should implement the FAA approved noise abatement and
noise mitigation measures as recommended in the FAR 150 Noise Compatibility
Program for McClellan-Palomar Airport.
7. The County of San Diego, in cooperation with the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG,
should pqxm an airport master plan.
8. The City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego should seek an avigation
easement for all new development witbin the noise contours.
9. The County of San Diego and the Cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Vista, and
Oceanside should implement a disclosure notice for all new residential development
within the noise impact notifkation area.
16
Recommendations for Action bv the San Dieeo Association of Governments (ALUC)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Monitor the plans and regulations adopted by the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas,
Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside, and the County of San Diego, and act in
accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by SANDAG (ALUC).
Use the Land Use Compatibility with Projected Community Noise Equivalent Levels
matrix contained in this plan for the determination of consistency of proposed
development within the Airport Influence Area.
Use the Clear Zones and Flight Activity Zone suitability guidelines in determining
compatible land uses (including height limits) for areas subject to risk resulting from
aircraft takeoff and landing patterns. Stipulate that any proposed discretionary
construction found to be a "hazard" to navigation by FAA is not in conformance
with the CLUP.
Work with the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, FAA, and National
Transportation Safety Board to review the Flight Activity Zone and land use
compatibility matrix contained in this CLUP.
Discourage federal or state expenditures on projects intended to support residential
or other forms of incompatible development within areas subject to excessive noise
levels andor accident potential as defmed in this plan (e.g., sewer projects, FHA
mortgage insurance).
Vm. ALUC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The following steps are identified as the process by which a development or proposal is
determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar
Airport:
1.
2.
3.
The local agency staff or the airport opemtor notifes the ALUC staff of proposed
adoption or amendment of general or specific plans or the adoption or approval of
a zoning ordinance or building regulation on lands lying wholly or partially in the
airport's area of influence.
The ALUC staff determines whether or not the proposed action would be clearly
consistent with the ALUC adopted land use plan covering such area and so notifies
the local agency. This written notice shall constitute action by the ALUC.
If the proposed action of the local agency is considered by the ALUC staff to be
potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the Commission shall hold
a hearing to determine whether or not the proposed action is inconsistent with the
Commission's plan. The local agency shall be notified of the ALUC decision prior
to the agency's hearing.
17
4. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent, the
Commission’s action shall be considered by the local agency. After holding a public
hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its govemhg body, the local agency proposing the
action may overrule the ALUC if it makes specific findings that the proposed action
is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code.
IX. PLANUPDATE
This plan should be updated every five years from date of adoption or when the
information upon which the plan is based has been changed sufficiently to wmt a
review of noise contours, flight activity zones, or land use compatibility.
18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Aircraft tvw
EXISTING AND FORECAST AVERAGE DAY AIRCRAFT MIX
McClellm-Pdomrr Airport
1989 and 1995
These forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the information and 8ssumptims given in the FAR Part I50 study (May, 1990). The
achievement of MY fomcast is dependent upon the Occurrence of future events that cannot be usurcd. Therefore, the actual results nuy
vary from the foracrsts.
Turbojet
Turbofan
Huvy turboprop a
Light turboprop
Twincngine prop
Singleengine prop
Helicopter
Total
Number
Percentage
Day Evening
Night
= 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
= 7 p.m. to IO p.m.
= IO p.m. to 7 a.m.
7.7 0.6 0. I 8.4 9.7 0.8 0. I 10.6
2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3 .O
22.9 0.3 0.2 23.4 39. I 1.6 0.8 41.5
59.1 13.0 0.0 72. I 77.9 17.5 0.0 95.4
449.0 33.6 4.5 487. I 530.7 42. I 10.3 583. I
20.6 - 23.8 - 1.6 - 0.0 25.4 - 19.6 - I .o 0-0 -
15. I 3.3 0.2 18.6 30.0 4.8 0.7 35.5
575.4 51.8 5.0 632.2 714.2 68.4 11.9 794.5
210,012 18,907 1.825 230,744
9 I .O% 8.2% 0.8% 100.0%
8.
b.
Turboprop with maximum gross takaoff weight greater than 12.500 pounds.
Turboprop with maximum gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less.
260,690 24,966 4,344 290.000
89.9% 8.6% I .5% Ioo.O%
CI
P
z %urces: 1989 drtr: KPMG kat Marwick, J8nuary 1990, bad on rircran observations from October 21, 1989 through November 8. 1989, md Airport
Traffic Control Tower counts
1995 forecasts: SM Diego County. May 1990
T8ble 4 (p9. 3 Of 31
AVERACE DAY RIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION
McClellan-Palomar Airport
ARRIVALS, DEPARTURES, AND TRAINING BY lovMBER AND PP\CENTAGt
Percentaac of 1989 8nd 1995 Omrations Twin-
Herop Light engine
Jet tu rbODr Op turbODrOQ DrOD
Single-
eng in. DroD Helicopter
D8parture
trrekr
DO 1
DO2
DO 3
DO4
DO 5
DO6
DO?
DO 8
DO9
Dl0
20.08
20.0
20.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
30.0
25.0%
48.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
9.68
9.6
9.6
9.6
23.0
6.0
13.0
8 .o
2.0
9.6
9.68
9.6
9.6
9.6
23.0
6.0
13.0
8.0
2.0
9.6
9.68
9.6
9.6
9.6
23.0
6.0
13.0
8.0
2.0
9.6
100. 08
0.08
98.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
100. OI Total 100. 08 100.08 100 . 08 100 . OI
Arrival tracks
0.0%
0.0
25.0
0.0
73.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
A0 1
A02
A03
A0 4
A0 5
A0 6
A07
A08
A09
0.08
0.0
25.0
0.0
73.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 .o
0.08
34.0
0.0
6.0
34.0
14.0
10.0
0.0
2.0
22.08
12.0
0.0
6.0
34.0
14.0
2.0
8.0
2.0
22.08
12.0
0.0
6.0
34.0
14.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.08
0.0
0 .o
0.0
98.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
100.08 100.08 Total 100 . 08 100. 08 100 -0% 100 . 08
Tr8 ining tr8ckr
82.08 92.08 82 . 0%
18.0 18.0 18.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
TO 1
TO2
TO 3
0.08
0.0
100.0
0.08 0.08
0.0 0.0
100.0 100 . 0
100 .OI 100.08 100 . 08 100.08 100 .08 100.08
Note:
Source :
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Brown-Bunt in ASSOChteS , fnc. I my 1990
24
APPENDIX C
Tablo 4
1.
2.
3.
b.
1.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Uiro tho traffic pattorn altltudor
Incroroo XUa and VUIb mglor fra
3.2 dogroos to 3.76 dogroor
nodity koanridr mpprmcb to
uiatain highor rltitudo mor C~r10b.d
Roquiro visual doparturoa pronoding to
tho coart era Runuay 24 to turn to a 2SOdogroo hmadlng .ad fly thtW9h tho 9ap ktwon Solrut ud hrr.ur
kvolop jot rtmdard inrtruwnt dopar-
tu10 (SID) for Ruauay 24 operationo to turn to a 2SO4mgroo h.adl~9 and portorm a thrurt CUtbCk procduro at
Intorrtato 1
Conduct a toat la rhich lunuay 14
arrivalr would ulatain war and flap rmttlaqr from the outor urko-r until mot ?&laat mot.
Roquiro jot arrival# to Runmy 24 to
US. tho IU
Spoclty Runuay 24 a0 tho protorontial ruawy
fncrooro tbo h.1lcogtor rout0 altitud. eo 1000 LHt IUL'
P
10. -to onqiao uintrn~co ruaup
11.
arm to mot ride or tho Altport
lold aircraft at parking porieion rhon doprreuro dolayo aro ai9a
wnnt ~IOUIOI
12. Diacourago tho u@. of tho AltpOrt by aircraft -0porating at a uxi8um rnight of 60,000 pound. or mor0
13. Diocourage jot training oprrrtionr.
particularly by Stag. 1 aircraft
ht ity with 1.olomontation roswnrlbillt+
&a Dloqo County/ Iodoral Aviation Adminlrtratlos
ha Dioqo Cwntp/ Iodoral Aviation MBinlrtratlon
kn Dl090 County/
?adoral Aviatloa ~minirtration
ka Dim County/ Podoral Aviation Mmiairtrrtion
&a Dim couOty/
?.doral Avlatioa MBiairtration
ka Die90 county/
Podoral Aviation Mmin~rtrrtion/ Aircraft ovorators
Sam Dioqo Cowty/ ?dotal Aviation adminirttrtion
&a Diogo County/ Idoral Aviatlon AdmiaIrtratioa
&f~ Ply0 bunt?/ Podoral Aviation ~iniotratlm/
Aircraft wratorr
san Diogo county/ Aircraft oporatorr
rrpproxiu t 0 -
1991
1991
1991
1991d
1991d
1991
199ld
1991
1991
199ld
1991d
25
WO@U?O
:.glowat r voluntary Itago 1 jot 4rp.rturo curtow botmn LO p.m. aa4 7 a.m.
14.
1s. Aeguiro and iartal1 a prrunont wiro wnitoiisg oyrru
Dorignrto r nois. abrtount offieor
Continus to hvo tho ?rlour Airport
Advisory Corittoo act ar oolro abatonnt coritt.0
16.
17.
la. ?todue. upr idontitying tbo mi@O- ronr it ivo arors around ALIpOrt
1.
1.
3.
4.
S.
6.
Ch.spo tho Airport ~nflurnco Aroa to rofloct tbo now forouot mire oxporuro
Upr
Amend tbo bois0 olowntr of tho City and County gonorrl pLms to rrfloct tho now aoiso oxporuro up*
8.puirr all land ueoo iaaido tho
65 b. ronod 4r capmtlblr land uro or roquiro roundprootinq
noquiro tho granting of avl1rtion 0.80- montr tor all now aoiao-ronritivo land
uoos inrido tho CWLt 6s
hruro that all proportior torldo tho
QllL IS ineludo tho riteraft nola0
lovolr ln tho fair diacloauro rtatmnt
heourago tut tho agrlculrural moa wrt of tho Airport r-la an agritul-
tutrl prrrorvo
htit) ulth Approximato lmDl0 montrtlon roam nr ibi 11 ty
Ira Diogo County/ Airct&Lt oporatotr
krr Diow County
Ira Diogo County
ko Dim County/
SUI Diogo &soclrtiba of Govorwatr (Airport Lurd Or0
Cmiarlon)
City of Catlabad/ Sur Diogo Caunty
Clty of Carlabad
SM DLogo County
city of earlread
Clty of C.rlrkd/ ?roprrty ownot
a. :nrtruwnt landtly ayrtom.
b. ViarUA approach @log. imdlutor. e. Vory high-ftoquoncy aniditoctiorul tadlo two. d. Bec-ndod retionr tlyt haw kon Lmplomontod or aro bolng imp10MntOd (eltbqh toxt uy indicrto aetionr noodod beyond thoro aLrordy takon).
0. moan oor LOVOL.
1991
1991
1991
19¶A
1991
1991
1991
1991
199A
1991
1991
26
Mr. Jack Hiller Assistant Deputy Director Department of Public Yorks
1960 Joe Crosson Drive
El Cajon, CA 92020
HcClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbrd, California FAR Part 150 Noise Comgatiblllty Program
Dear Hr. Hiller:
me Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evaluated the Nolse Cornpati-
bllity Program (NCP) for the above referenced airport contained In the PAR Part 1SO Study and related documents submitted to this office under the
provisions of Section 104(a) of the-Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
of 1979. I am pleased to inform you chat the Assistant Administrator for Airports has approved 15 of the 24 proposed noise compatibility measures in
the NCP: 7 noise measures were disapproved, and 2 received no action. The
specific FAA action for each Noise Compatibility Program element is set forth in the enclosed Record of Approval. The effective date of this approval is June 16, 1992.
Each Alrport Nolse Compatibllity Program developed In accordance with FAR Part
150 is a local proerm and not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute
its Judgement for that of the airport sponsor uith respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA’s approval, dlsapproval or no action taken of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and is limited to the following determinations:
1. The Nolse Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the
provislons and procedures of BAR Part 1SO;
2. Program measures are reasonably consistent with rchlavine the goals of reducing existine noncompatible land uses around the airport and preventing the lntroduction of new Incompatible land uses;
3. Proiram measures would not create an undue burden on Interstate or
foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government.
27
4. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogatlw safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the naviga- ble airspace and air traffic control responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Speclfic limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an Airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in FAR Part 150, Section 150.5. Appro- val is not a determination concerning the acceptabilit? of land uses under Federal, State or local law. Approval does not, by itself, constitute an FAA implementation action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific Noise Compatibility Measures may be required. An FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a comitment by the FAA to financially assist in the imlementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA
under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the appropriate FAA office.
me FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcine approval
of this Noise Compatibility Program.
official notice, however, you may do so if You wish.
You are not required to give local
Thank YOU for your continued interest in Noise Compatibility Planning.
Sincerely,
x*,/ llanager. Airports Division
L Enclosure
28
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
RECORD OF APPROVAL
FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY
PROGRAM
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Carlsbad, California
CONCUR NONCONCUR
Pssistant Administrator for ;olicy, Planning, and International Aviation, API-1
-Chief Counsel, AGC-1
VI-
Date
APPROVED DISAPPROVED 6e’
29
RECORD OF APPROVAL MCCLELLAN-PAIDMAR AIRPORT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
JNTRODUCTI ON
The McClellan-Palomar Airport (CRQ) Noise Compatibility Program
(NCP) describes the current and future incompatible land uses based on the parameters as established in FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The NCP includes eighteen (18) noise abatement measures, and six (6) noise mitigation measures. These measures are summarized on pages 3, and 4 of the Noise Compatibility Program, Volume 2.
The approvals listed herein include approvals of actions that the airport recommends be taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It should be noted that these approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of FAR Part 150. The approvals do not constitute decisions to implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of these actions may be subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or ' requirements.
The recommendations below summarize as closely as possible the airport operator's recommendations in the noise compatibility program and are cross-referenced to the program document. The statements contained within the summarized recommendations and before the indicated FAA approval, disapproval, or other determination do not represent the opinions or decisions of the FAA.
FOISE COMPATIRILI TY PRO GRAM ME ASURE S
NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
m
1. Raise the traffic pattern altitude from eo0 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 1,000 feet for helicopters, from 1,200 feet MSL to 1,500 feet for small aircraft, and from 1,500 feet MSL to 2,000 feet for large aircraft. (page 11, Exhibit E, Table 3 C 4)
procedures under Section 104(b) of the Aviation Safety and Nqise Abatement Act of 1979. In addition, the NCP would have to
adequately demonstrate a noise benefit; statistical and other data to make a determination on the benefits of this measure from a noise standpoint.
Po a ction rem ired at this tim e. This measure relates to flight
there is insufficient
30
.
2. Increase the instrument landing system (TU) glideslope angle and the visual approach slope indicator (VASI) angle to 3.6 degrees, which would provide additional altitude to arriving aircraft overflying neighborhoods to the east of the airport, including the community of San Marcos and the Palomar West Mobile Home Park. (page 16)
pisarmroved. Increasing the glideslope and VASI angles from their current 3.2 degrees to 3.6 degrees would not provide any meaningful noise reduction and would increase the complexity faced by pilots using these approach aids.
3. radio range (VOR) approach for aircraft so that they maintain a minimum altitude of 3,000 feet MSL at the Oceanside VOR, 2,000 feet MSL four miles past the VOR on a heading of 120 degrees,
Modify the Oceanside very high frequency omnidirectional
and 1,400 feet MSL seven miles past the VOR. (page 16)
JliSaDDrOVed. Increasing the altitude to 1,400 feet at 7DME would require raising the established minima and would thereby reduce the utility of the approach.
4. Require visual departures proceeding to the coast from Runway 24 to (a) make a right turn as soon as feasible to a heading of 250 degrees, (b) fly over the vacant area between the communities of Terramar and Solamar, and (c) maintain heading until one mile past the shoreline before turning south or north.
(page 16)
moved as a voluntarv measure . This measure reflects a recommended practice which is already in effect at the airport. This measure should be implemented as a part of, and at the same time as measure #l8.
5. Prepare a standard instrument departure (SID) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning instrument flight mles (IFR) jet departures from runway 24 to require that aircraft maintain a heading of 250 degrees and climb to a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet MSL before crossing 14 or the Oceanside 131-degree radial. Reduce power at 1-5 as acceptable for safe flight, and maintain the initial heading and altitude until at least three miles offshore. (page 17)
pro action rea ired at this time . This measure relates to a
flight procedure under Section 104(b) of the Airport Safety and Noise Abatement Act (ASNA) and requires additional information and analysis.
31
6. Conduct a test, using noise monitoring equipment, in which
arriving aircraft to Runway 24 maintain various gear and flap settings between the McClellan-Palomar Airport outer marker and the west edge of the Palomar West Mobile Home Park. The results of this test may recommend new approach procedures to reduce noise exposure. (page 17, 18)
A BBY ve es .
7. approach. (page 18)
does not demonstrate any noise benefit. However, FAR Part 91.129(d)(2) specifies that large and turbine powered aircraft shall fly the final approach at or above the ILS glideslope and
(3) provides that all aircraft approaching a runway equipped with a visual approach slope indicator shall fly at or above the glideslope until a lower altitude is necessary for landing.
Require jet aircraft arrivals to Runway 24 to use the IIS
Pisan= oved for burnoses of Part 1SQ . The measure as submitted
8. Specify Runway 24 for use by all aircraft during calm wind
conditions. (page 18)
&D& U . The airport sponsor should
consult with the manager of the air traffic control tower regarding implementation of changes to the ATCT SOP.
9. Increase the helicopter route altitude from 800 feet MSL to
1,000 feet MSL. (page 18)
PiSaDDrOVed * di d t'o V
1s 't . Information provided in the NCP
is insufficient to determine the noise benefit, if any, of this measure.
a.
Ground Omeration Measures
10. West side of the Airport with aircraft facing east. maintenance runups ohould be conducted between 1O:OO p.m., and
7:OO a.m. (page 19)
amroved. There is no documentation that these measures will result in a noise benefit for people in the airport vicinity. However, with respect to the location of an aircraft maintenance runup area, the airport operator has the perogative of designating such a location.
Locate the aircraft engine maintenance runup area on the No
32
11. on the taxiway, additional departing aircraft should hold at their tiedown or hanger location vith engines off. (page 19)
When more than four departing aircraft are waiting in queues
PisaDDroved. There is no indication that aircraft taxiing or holding for departure contribute to noise impacts in the airport vicinity, nor is there any indication that this measure provides any noise benefit.
12.
-moved for burnoses of Part 1 50. The cause and effect relationship between aircraft weight and aircraft noise is not presented in the NCP. It is within an airport sponsor's discretion however, to develop or not develop airport facilities to serve larger aircraft and to make known to pilots the physical limitations of the airfield.
Discourage use of the Airport by aircraft operating at a
maximum weight of 60,000 pounds, or more. (Paw 19)
13. Discourage jet training operations, particularly by Stage 2 aircraft, through voluntary compliance. (page 19)
Umroved as a voluntarv measure on& . This measure provides for continuation of an existing on-going program at the airport. Any mandatory restriction proposed for Stage 2 aircraft would be subject to analysis and review under the Airport Noise and Capccity Act of 1990 and FAR Part 161.
14. Implement a voluntary Stage 2 jet departure curfew between 1O:OO p. TU., and 7:00 a. m. through a letter of agreement between the airport owner (County of San Diego) .and operators of Stage 2 jet aircraft located at the Airport. (page 20)
Braved as a voluntarv measure only . Any attempt to make this measure mandatory would be subject to analysis and review under the Aviation Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and FAR Part
161
15. validate the effectiveness of the noise abatement.procedures and to quantify noise problems in surrounding neighborhoods in the future.
Acquire and install a permanent noise monitoring system to
FDDrOVed. NOTE: For purposes of aviation safety, this approval
does not extend to the use of monitoring equipment for enforcement purposes by in situ measurement of any pre-set noise thresholds.
33
16. approved Noise Compatibility Program. Designate a noise abatement officer to administer the
(page 20)
17. as a forum for discussion of noise abatement actions. Continue to have the Palomar Airport Advisory Committee act
(page 20)
18. Produce maps identifying noise sensitive areas around the Airport, and distribute them to pilots to help them avoid these areas when possible. (page 20, 27)
fimrovea. -Implementation of this measure should be combined with measure number 4 as a part of a comprehensive effort to inform pilots regarding the noise sensitive areas in the vicinity of the airport.
NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
preventive Measures
1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport to reflect the new forecast noise exposure area in the Airport Influence Area. (page 28 and Appendix A)
JiDDroved. This measure is Considered to be within the authority of the County Airport Land Use Committee.
Amend the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission's
2. Amend the noise elements in the General Plans of San Diego County, and the City of Carlsbad to reflect the new noise exposure maps. (page 28 and Appendix A)
moved. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad.
3. or future) should be rezoned to a compatible use, or, if noise sensitive development is permitted, adequate noise insulation should be required. (page 28)
BBproveQ. This measure is considered to be within the authority of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad.
All undeveloped land exposed to noise of CNEL 65+ (current
34
4. If new noise sensitive development is permitted in areas of CNEL 65+, the granting of an avigation easement to San Diego County should be required as a condition of approval.
29) (page
hgprovsd. of the County of San Diego, and City of Carlsbad. This measure is considered to be within the authority
5. The City of Carlsbad should ensure that for all properties in areas of CNEL 65+, the aircraft noise levels are included in the fair disclosure statement, as required by the State of California. (page 29)
&proved.
60 The owner of the large agricultural area west of the Airport should be encouraged to keep the land in an agricultural preserve under the Williamson Act. (page 29)
35
APPENDIX D
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR), PART 77
FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT
FAA regulation of airspace around airports is established primarily to protect aircraft. FAA
notifies pilots and airport operators of hazardous conditions. However, only local governments
have the authority to correct or prevent any construction or alterations which would pose a
hazard to air navigation.
FAR Part 77 identifies airspace within which development should be controlled to protect air
navigation. It describes a number of imaginary surface with various shapes for different types
of airports and runway configurations. Dimensions of the surfaces varies from airport to
airport depending on the runway classification. The following describes the imaginary surfaces
for McClellan-Palomar Airport, and Runway 24. Descriptions of the surfaces are abbreviated
from the federal document.
Primary surface: a surface longitudinally centered on a runway and extending 200
feet beyond the end of that runway. The width of this surface is 1,000. The
elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the
runway at that point.
Approach surface: a surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway
centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary
surface. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same as the width of the
primary surface and it expands uniformly to 16,000 feet at a distance of 50,000
feet. The slope of this surface is 50: 1.
Transitional surface: these surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to
the runway centerline or its extension at a slope of 7:l from the sides of the
primary surfaces and the approach surfaces.
Horizontal surface: a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of 10,ooO feet
from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting
the adjacent arc by lines tangent to those arcs.
Conical surface: a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:l for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
The purpose of the imaginary surfaces is to protea the approach, departure, and circling airspace in the vicinity of the airport. Any object which penetrates the surfaces is an
obstruction. FAA reviews each proposed obstruction to determine if it constitutes a hazard to air navigation.
37
APPENDIX E
RULES AND REGULATIONS
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION
San Diego Association of Governments Board of Directors
Revised Januarv 1990
The State of California, in 1970, enacted a law regarding the formation of an Airport Land
Use Commission in each county. If the Board of Supervisors and the city selection
committee of mayors in each county made a determination by a majority vote that proper
land use planning could be accomplished through the actions of an appropriately designated
body, then such body could assume the planning responsibilities of an airport land use
commission and a separate commission need not be formed in that county.
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote on December 15, 1970,
recommended that the San Diego Association of Govements be designated to assume the
responsibilities of an airport land use commission. A similar resolution was passed and
adopted by the Selection Committee of Mayors of the San Diego County Region on
February 8, 1971. The Secretary of State was notified of this determination on
February 25, 1971, and an acknowledgement of this determination was received from the
Secretary of State's ofice on March 2, 1971.
The authority, powers, duties, and limitations of this appropriately designated body are
defined in the California Public Utilities Code, Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5,
commencing with Section 21670. In accordance with the authority with which it has been
invested, and in performance of the duties with which it has been charged, the San Diego
Association of Governments Board of Directors, acting as the Airport Land Use
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") and pursuant to Section 21674 of
the Public Utilities Code, hereby adopts and promulgates the following mles and
regulations which shall provide advice and guidance to the Commission in carrying out its
duties, and inform public agencies and private parties of the Commission's procedures.
39
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1 Name
The San Diego Association of Governments is designated the Avport Land Use
Commission in San Diego County.
Section 1.2 l?ue!2=
The Commission hereby finds and declares that:
a. It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each
public use airport in this county, and the acea surrounding these airports so as
to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California Airport Noise
Standards adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2 1669, and prevent
the creation of new noise and safety problems; and
b. It is the purpose of this Commission to protect public health, safety and
welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land
use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are
not already devoted to incompatible uses.
Section 1.3 powers and Dubes
The Commission has the following powers and duties, subject to the limitations set forth
in Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code:'
a. To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all
new ahports and in the vichity of existing airports to the extent that the land
in the vicinity of such airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses.
b. To coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide
for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the Same time
protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
c. To prepare and adopt comprehensive land use plans pursuant to Article m.
d. To review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and
airport opentors pursuant to Article IV.
'All further section references are to the Public Utilities Code.
40
e. To act upon applications for the construction of new airports.
The powers of the Commission shall in no way be construed to give the Commission
jurisdiction over the operation of any airport.
Section 1.4 Creat ion of Ad Hoc Co mmittees an d Apmintment of Members
The Commission Chairperson may, subject to review and raflication by the Commission,
create Ad Hoc Committees and may appoint ad hoc committee members representing those
jurisdictions, agencies, or pups who will be most directly affected by the determination
of the Commission on any comprehensive land use plan.
Section 1.5 Eixs
The Commission may establish a schedule of fees to cover its costs for reviewing and
processing proposals, and for providing copies of comprehensive land use plans. The fees
will be charged to proponents of actions, regulations, and permits. After June 30, 1991,
the Commission will discontinue charging fees for proposals around any airport which
does not have an adopted comprehensive land use plan.
DEFINITIONS
As used in these rules and regulations, the following terms shall have the meanings
indicated.
Section 2.1 Aircraft
Any manned contrivance used or designed for navigation of, or flight in, the air requiring
certifkation and registration as prescribed by federal statute or regulation. Manned
lighter-than-air balloons and ultralight vehicles as defined in the regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration (14 C.F.R. Part 103), whether or not certified by the Federal
Aviation Administration, shall not be considered to be aircraft for purposes of these rules
and regulations.
Section 2.2 luQQ€l
Any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off
of aircraft. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for
airport buildings or any other airport facilities or rights-of-way, and all airport buildings
and facilities located thereon. Heliports, helipads and helistops shall be considered airports
for purposes of these rules and regulations.
41
Section 2.3 Wrt Influence Area
A planning area designated by the Commission around each public airport which is, or
reasonably may become, affected by airport related noise, fumes, or other influence, or
which is, or reasonably may become, a site for a hazard to aerial navigation.
Section 2.4
An airpOrt layout plan is a graphic presentation to scale of existing and proposed airport
facilities, their location on the airport, and the pertinent clmance and dimensional
information required to show conformance with applicable standards.
Section 2.5
An airport master plan presents an operator or praprietor's conception of the ultimate
development of a specific airport. An airport master plan should present in graphic and
written form an inventory of existing airport facilities, forecasts of aviation demand,
demandcapacity analysis, facility requirements determinations and environmental study.
Section 2.6 rt ODerator
Any person or entity having the authority and responsibility for the establishment and
operation of an airport.
Section 2.7 rt ProDrietor
Any person or entity having the legal right or exclusive title to an airport.
Section 2.8 Comprehens ive Land Use P la
A comprehensive land use plan presents the Commission's determination of the areas
cumntly impacted or likely to be impacted by noise levels and flight activities associated
with aircraft operations of a particular airport. It presents in narrative and graphic fom
the noise, safety and other criteria which will enable local agencies to compatibly plan and
develop the land within the airport influence area. ("he Comprehensive Land Use Plan
may also be referred to herein as "Plan".)
Section 2.9 HeliDad
Any area of a structure which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of
helicopters. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use, for
helipad buildings or other helipad facilities or rights-of-way, and all helipad buildings and
facilities located thereon.
42
Section 2.10 Heliport
Any area of land or water which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off
of helicopters. Included are any appurtenant areas which are used, or intended for use,
for heliport buildings or other heliport facilities or rights-of-way, and all heliport buildings
and facilities located thereon.
Section 2.11 pelistog
Any area of land, water, or a structure not designated as either a heliport or a helipad
which is used, or intended for use, for the landing and take-off of helicopters. Such areas
generally provide only minimal facilities to accommodate helicopter landings and take-offs.
Section 2.12 Agencies and Pubhc
A County, a city, special district, or any combination thereof, which has the authority to
do atiy of the following: (1) adopt general or specific land use plans and establish land
use zones which are applicable to land within the boundaries of a comprehensive land use
plan adopted by the Commission; or (2) own any public airport.
Section 2.13 private
Any airport which allows use of its facilities only by the owner or his invitees.
Section 2.14
Any airport which offers the use of its facilities by the public in general without prior
notice and without specific invitation or clearance. An airport proprietor or operator may
preclude use by a size or type of aircraft for which the facilities are not adequate without
altering the public status of the airport.
Section 3.1 Foxmulation of the Cowrehens ive Land Use Plan
The Commission shall be responsible for the formulation of a comprehensive land use plan
for each public airport in the region, as required by state law. The following documents
shall be used as primary sources of infomation:
0
0 AirportMasterPlans
General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Maps and ordinances of Local Public
Agencies
43
Airport Layout Plans
0
0
NOISE STANDARDS, Title 21, Chapter 2.5, Subchapter 6, California Adminis-
trative Code
OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE, Federal Aviation Regulations,
Part 77
San Diego Plan for Air Transportation
SANDAG's Adopted Regional Growth Forecasts
a. The Commission shall formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will
provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the airport influence
area within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and will safeguard the general
welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in
genexal. The Commission plan shall include the airport master plan that
reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years.
In formulating a comprehensive land use plan, the Commission may develop
height restrictions on buildings, may specify uses of land, and may determine
building standards, including soundpmfmg adjacent to airports, within the
airport influence area.
b. The Commission may include, within its plan formulated pursuant to
subdivision (a) the area within the jurisdiction of the Commission surrounding
any federal military airport for all the purposes specified in subdivision (a).
This subdivision shall not give the Commission any jurisdiction or authority
over the temtoq or operations of any military airport.
c. The airport influence area boundaries shall be established by the Commission
after hearing and consultation with the involved agencies. Boundaries shall be
determined for those areas adjacent to public airports which could be impacted
by noise levels exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height
restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as
outlined in Federal Aviation Regulations. The airport influence areas shall
serve as a basis for formulating the comprehensive land use plan. It is the
intent of the Commission to make it possible for individual property owners
to readily ascertain whether or not a particular parcel of property is located
within an airport influence area. To the maximum extent practical, these
boundaries shall be described with reference to prominent features or
landmarks of a permanent nature such as roads, power lines, railroad tracks,
etC.
d. Preparation of each comprehensive land use plan shall be a cooperative effort
of the Commission staff, airport propneton and operators, ad hoc committee
members, and representatives of the local agencies.
e.
'
The Commission shall submit to the Division of Aeronautics of CALTRANS
one copy of the plan and each amendment to the plan.
44
Section 3.2 -&
A request to amend or revise a comprehensive land use plan may be submitted to the
Commission at any time by the airport proprietor, the airport operator, or an affected local
agency. Plan amendments or revisions may be necessitated by a change in airport use,
size, number and type of aircraft accommodated, or a change to the airport master plan,
among other reasons. In addition, the Commission shall periodically review adopted
comprehensive land use plans and initiate any amendment or revision that may be
required. A comprehensive land use plan shall not be amended more than once in any
calendar year.
Section 3.3 Ad*t ion of ComD - rehensive Land Use Plan and mdme nu
The comprehensive land use plan and any amendments thereto shall be approved and
adopted by the Commission, and shall constitute the Commission’s recommendation to the
local agency for compatible land uses within the airport influence area. Prior to adopting
each comprehensive land use plan or amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing in accordance with Article VI.
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS
Section 4.1
ItkauIs
The following steps are idenMied as the process by which a specified action is determined
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a particular airpon.
a. The local agency staff (City Manager/CAO or Planning Director) or the airport
operator provides written notice to the Commission staff of a proposed
adoption or amendment of general or specific plans or the adoption or approval
of a zoning ordinance or building regulation on land lying wholly or partially
in the airport’s area of influence. (Written notice shall include the official
transmittal of environmental documentation of the proposal for review by the
Commission.)
b. The Commission staff determines whether or not the proposed action would
be clearly consistent with the Commission’s adopted land use plan covering
such area and so notifies the local agency. This written notice shall constitute
action by the Commission.
c. If the proposed action of the local agency is considered by the Commission
staff to be potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the
45
Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not the proposed
action is inconsistent with the Commission’s plan. The local agexy shall be
notified of the Commission’s decision prior to the agency’s hearing.
d. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent,
the Commission’s action shall be considered by the local agency. After holding
a public hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, the local agency
proposing the action may ovemle the Commission if it makes specific findings
that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Section 21670
of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 4.2
The following steps are identifed as the process by which an Airport Master Plan is
determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for a particular
airport.
a. Each public agency owning an airport within the boundaries of a comp-
rehensive land use plan adopted by the Commission shall, prior to modification
of its airport master plan, refer the proposed changes to the Commission.
b. The Commission staff determines whether or not the proposed action would
be clearly consistent with the Commission’s adopted land use plan covering
such area and so nowies the public agency. This written notice shall constitute
action by the Commission.
c. If the proposed action of the public agency is considered by the Commission
staff to be potentially inconsistent with the adopted land use plan, the
Commission shall hold a hearing to deternine whether or not the proposed
action is inconsistent with the Commission’s plan. The public agency shall be
notified of the Commission’s decision prior to the agency’s hearing.
d. If it is determined by the Commission that the proposed action is inconsistent,
the Commission’s action shall be considered by the public agency. After
holding a public hearing, by a two-thirds vote of its goveming body, the public
agency proposing the action may ovemle the Commission if it makes specific
findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in
Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code.
.. Section 4.3 ’‘ Further Commission Re view of Local Agencv Actions
a. If the Commission finds that a local agency has not revisad its general plan or
specific plan or ovemled the Commission by a two-thirds vote of its
governing body after making specifk findings that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Section 21670, the
Commission may requite that the local agency submit all subsequent actions,
46
regulations, and pennits to the Commission for review until its general plan
or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the
determination of the Commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local
agency is inconsistent with the Commission plan, the local agency shall be
notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The
local agency may overrule the Commission after the hearing by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes stated in Public Utilities Code Section 21670.
b. Whenever the local agency has revised its general or specific plan or has
overruled the Commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of
the local agency shall not be subject to further Commission review, unless the
Commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be
reviewed by the Commission.
Section 4.4 1s Review for * h iv d P
The following steps are identifed as the process by which all actions, regulations, and
pennits in the vicinity of an airport without a Comprehensive Land Use Plan are reviewed.
a. Beginning January lst, 1990, the local land use agency (city or county) shall
first submit to the Commission all actions, regulations and permits within the
vicinity of a public airport without a comprehensive land use plan to the
Commission for review and approval. If the Commission has not designated
a study area for the plan, then "vicinity" means the area within two miles of
the boundary of a public airport.
b. Before the Commission approves or disapproves the submittal, it shall give
public notice in the same manner as the local land use agency. The
Commission may approve a submittal if it finds, based on substantial evidence
in the record, all of the following:
(1) The Commission is making substantial progress toward the completion
of the plan.
(2) There is a reasonable probability that the action, regulation, or permit
will be consistent with the plan being prepared by the Commission.
(3) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted Plan if the action, regulation or permit is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c. If the Commission disapproves an action, egulation, or permit, the
Commission shall notify the local agency. The local agency may overrule the
Commission, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body, if it makes specific
47
findings that the proposed action, regulation, or permit is consistent with the
purposes of stated in Section 21670.
d. The Commission may adopt additional rules and regulations which exempt any
ministerial permit for single family dwellings and exclude other actions,
regulations, and permits from the requirements of subdivision (a) if it makes
the findings required pursuant to subdivision (b) for the proposed rules and
regulations, except that the rules and regulations may not exempt either of the
following :
(1) More than two single family dwellings by the Same applicant within a
subdivision prior to June 30, 1991.
(2) Single family dwellings in a subdivision where 25 percent or more of the
parcels are undeveloped.
The Executive Director is authorized to detendne the consistency of proposed actions
referred to the Commission, but only where such actions are clearly consistent with the
comprehensive land use plan. The Executive Director shall officially notify the local
agency and the airport operator (where the operator makes the referral) of such finding
within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action.
The Executive Director is authorized to approve actions, regulations, and permits
submitted pursuant to Section 4.4, but only where such actions, regulations, and pennits
clearly meet the substantial evidence test required pursuant to subdivision 0).
wn Deaa .. Section 4.6
Each Commission determination pursuant to these rules and regulations shall be made
within 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action in accordance with Sections
21675.2 and 21676.
nsidetaQon Cntena for Dete-ons of CQtlslstency .. Section 4.7
Commission determinations made pursuant to Section 4.1 shall Emah in effect until such
time as any of the following occur:
a. There is a substantive alteration, change, or modification to the proposed
action.
b. There is a change in the relewant airport master plan which substantively alters
the noise and safety effects of aircraft opexations.
48
c. The relevant comprehensive land use plan is substantively revised or amended
pursuant to Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
d. Four years have lapsed since the Commission’s determination, and final
discretionary approval of the proposal has not been taken by the local agency.
At such time the Commission’s previous determination shall be null and void and the
Commission shall make a new determination of consistency pursuant to Section 4.1.
Section 4.8 Immunitv From Liability
With respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the
public agency, pursuant to Sections 21675.1, 21676 or 21676.5 of the Public Utilities
Code, ovemdes the Commission’s action or mmmencfation, the operator of the airport
shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or
resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to ovemde the
Commission’s action or recommendation.
Section 4.9 CEOA &Re
The Commission’s review and comment on draft environmental documents pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental Protection Act shall
be independent of its review of proposals for the purpose of making a consistency
determination, unless the refening agency specifically requests that both reviews be
conducted concurrently.
REMEW OF NEW AIRPORTS
Section 5.1 New AvDort Plan Subm ission
No political subdivision, any of its oficers or employees, or any person may submit any
application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal
agency unless the plan for such construction is fvst approved by the board of supervisors
of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and
unless the plan is submitted to the Commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5
(commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public
Utilities Code and acted upon by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of
such article.
Section 5.2 Hearines
Commission action will be taken in accordance with Article VI.
49
PUBLIC "GS
Section 6.1 procedures
Public hearings shall be held in accordance with SANDAG procedures.
Section 6.2 ssine of Referrals
Referrals to the Commission shall be submitted in writing. The referral should fully and
fairly state the reason for the referral and should include detailed property descriptions,
maps and other material necessary to fully understand the matter for which a heating is
being requested. Within the 15 working days immediately following the receipt of a
referral, the Commission's staff shall detemine if the matter for which the hearing is
being requested is within the purview of the Commission. If the matter is a proper subject
for a hearing, a date for the hearing shall be set and the date for hearing shall be not more
than 60 days from the date of referral of the proposed action.
Public notice of Commission hearings shall be made in accotdance with applicable law.
In addition, the date and subject matter of each hearing shall be sent to the local agency
and to all public agencies having an interest in the matter to be heard.
CONFLJCT OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21672, Commission members shall disqualify
themselves from participating in the review or adoption of a proposal because of conflict
of interest in accofdilllce with the provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1975, as
amended, and the SANDAG Conflict of Interest Code. Alternates to the Comtnission may
participate in the event of a regular Commission member's disqualification.
50
APPENDIX F
PUBLIC NOTICE OF
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A proposed negative declaration has been prepared by the San D,$go Association of
Governments for a draft McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
This recommended finding that the project will not have a sigJllficant effect on the
environment is based on an Environmental Initial Study conducted by SANDAG. The
Negative Declaration, Initial Study and supporting documents may be reviewed, or
purchased for the cost of reproduction, at the office of the San Diego Association of
Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, First Interstate Plaza. For environmental review
information, contact Jack Koerper at 595-5372.
Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Negative Declaration must be received
by the San Diego Association of Govements at the above address by October 7, 1993.
A final environmental report incorporating .public input will then be prepared for
consideration by decisionmaking authorities.
STUARTR. SHAFFER
Deputy Executive Director
This notice was published in the SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT and distributed on
August 23, 1993.
51
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SUBJECT: Draft McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SE"G: See attached Initial Study.
m. DETERMINATION:
The San Diego Association of Governments has conducted an Initial Study and
determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant environ-
mental effect and the preparation of an Emhnmental Impact Report will not
be required.
N. DOCUMENTATION:
The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above
Determination.
V. MITXGATING MEASURES: None Required
VI. PUBUC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to:
City of Carlsbad
Coastal Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
State of California Division of Aeronautics
City of Vista Palomar Airport Advisory Committee
State Clearinghouse
California Pilots Association
52
California Department of Fish and Game
County of San Diego
MI. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:
(4 No comments were received during the public input period.
( ) Comments were received but did not address the Negative Declaration
finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response
is necessary. The letters are attached.
( ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration
and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received
during the public input period. The letters and responses follow.
Copies of the draft Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available at the
SANDAG offices for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction.
8/1/93
Date of Draft Report STUARTR. SHAFFER
Deputy Executive Director
11/1/93
Date of Final Report
Analyst: Jack Koerper
53
Initial Study
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-
Palomar Airport
I. Purpose and Main Features:
SANDAG, as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for the San Diego
Region, has the responsibility to protect the region’s airports from incompatible
land use development. State law requires the preparation and adoption of an airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) by the ALUC to accomplish this goal.
A CLUP identifies the Airport Influence Am, noise contours, and the area
impacted by airport-generated noise; the kinds of land uses that are compatible and
incompatible with airport operations matrix, accident potential zones and matrix,
and recommendations for the airport operator, land use agency, and SANDAG, as
the Airport Land Use Commission.
II. Environmental Setting:
The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within the corporate limits of the City
of Carlsbad, approximately five miles southeast of the Carlsbad Village. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the airport as a general utility
facility, an ahport mainly serving aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of
12,000 pounds or less. However, some aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds, but less
than 60,000, do operate at the airport.
The North County area served by the airport is the fastest growing portion of the
region. It is expected to increase from its 1986 population of 481,355 to over
861,786 by the year 2000, an increase of 55.8%. Employment is forecast to
increase from 196,482 to 343,310, an increase of 57.2%. The rapid growth in
employment is due largely to the extensive industrial development taking place in
North County, much of it located around McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The airport is owned and operated by the County of San Diego. It occupies about
255 acres of land; the remaining 211 acres of County owned airport land is
separated from the airport by palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The
airport has one runway, Runway 6-24, which is 4,700 feet long by 150 feet wide.
McClellan-Palomar Ahport is the only airport with an instrument landing system
between Udbergh Field and Santa Ana that can accommodate the majonty of the
54
m,
N.
V.
J -
business aircraft fleet of over 12,500 pounds. There is a parallel taxiway equal to
the full length of the runway.
Environmental Analysis: See attached Initial Study Checklist
Discussion: None
Recommendation:
One the basis of this initial evaluation:
The proposed project would not have a sigdicant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a signifbnt effect on the environment,
there will not be a siflicant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in Section N above have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIR0"TAL IMPACT REPORT should be required.
PROJECT ANALYST: Jack Koerper, 595-5372
Attachments: Initial Study Checklist
SANDAG Board of Directors Report
Draft McClellan-Palomar CLUP
INtial Study Checklist
m.
A.
B.
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS:
This Initial Study checklist is designed to identify the potential for sigmficant environ-
mental impacts which could be associated with a project. All answers of "yes" and
"maybe" indicate that there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and these
determinations are explained in Section IV.
mMavbem
Geology/Soils. Will the proposal result in:
1.
2.
eir.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
Will the proposal result in:
Air emissions which would substantially
deteriorate ambient air quality?
The exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
The creation of objectionable odors?
The creation of dust?
Any alteration of air movement in
the area of the project?
A substantial alteration in moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
B_ *_. Willtheproposal result in:
1. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
--A
16
-- x
2. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface mnoR
3. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
4. Discharge into surface or ground waters,
or in any alteration of surface or ground
water quality, including, but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
5. Discharge into surface or ground waters,
signifcant amounts of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, gas, oil or other noxious
chemicals?
6. Change in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel
of a river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
7. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
8. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
D. Bioloey. Will the proposal result in:
1. A reduction in the number of any unique,
rare, endangered, sensitive or fully
protected species of plants or animals?
2. A substantial change in the diversity
of any species of animals or plants?
3. Introduction of invasive species of
plants into the area?
4. Interferewe with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species?
-- x
-- x
--A
57
5. An impact on a sensitive habitat,
including, but not limited to streamside
vegetation, oak woodland, vernal pools,
coastal salt marsh, lagoon, wetland, or
coastal sage scrub or chaparral?
6. Deterioration of existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
E. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
1. A significant increase in the
existing ambient noise levels?
2. Exposure of people to noise levels
which exceed the City’s adopted
noise ordinance?
3. Exposure of people to curmt or future
transporntion noise levels which exceed
standards established in the Transportation
Element of the General Plan?
F. . Willtheproposal
result in:
1. Substantial light or glare?
2. Substantial shading of other properties?
G. band Use. Will the proposal result in:
1. A land use which is inconsistent with
the adopted community plan land use
designation for the site?
2. A conflict with the goals, objectives
and recommendations of the community
plan in which it is located?
3. A conflict with adopted environmental plans for the area?
4. Land uses which are not compatible with
aircraft accident potential as defined by a
SANDAG (ALUC) Airport Land Use Plan?
--x
--x
--A
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
1. The prevention of future extraction of
sand and gravel resources?
2. The conversion of agricultural land to
nonagricultural use or impairment of the
agricultural productivity of agricultural
land?
Recreat ional Resources : Willtheproposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Pmulation. Will the proposal alter the
planned location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the population of an area?
Rousing. Will the proposal affezt existing
housing in the community, or create a
demand for additional housing?
TranmrtatiodCirculation. Will the proposal
result in:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Traffic generation in excess of specific/
community plan allocation?
An increase in projected traffic which is
substantial in relation to the capacity of
the street system?
An increased demand for off-site parking?
Effects on existing parking?
Substantial impact upon existing or
planned transportation systems?
Alterations to present circulation move-
ments including effects on existing public
access to beaches, parks, or other open
space areas?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
-- 1L
-- A
-- A
59 .
M. Public 9erviceS. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Other governmental services?
N. m. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or require substantial
alterations to existing utilities, including:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Power?
Natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
0. Energy. Will the proposal result in the use
of excessive amounts of fuel or energy?
P. W-n i . Willtheproposalresultin:
1. Use of excessive amounts of water?
2. Landscaping which is predominantly
non-drought resistant vegetation?
60
--x
--x
--x
Q. Neighborhood C hamctedAesthetics. Will the
proposal result in:
1. The obstruction of any vista or scenic
view from a public viewing area?
2. The creation of a negative aesthetic
site or project?
3. Project bulk, scale, materials or style
which will be incompatible with surrounding
development?
4. Substantial alteration to the existing
character of the area?
5. The loss of any distinctive or landmark
tree(s), or a stand of mature trees?
6. Substantial change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
7. The loss, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features such
as a natural canyon, sandstone bluff, rock
outcrop or hillside with a slope in excess
of 25 percent?
. Willthe R. Cultural/Scientlfic Resources ..
proposal result in:
1. Alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
2. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
object or site?
3. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to an architecturally sigmfkant building,
structure, or object?
-- 1L
61
S.
T.
4. Any impact to existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
5. The loss of paleontological resources?
LJuman HealtWPublic Safety . Willtheproposal
result in:
1. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
2. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
3. A future risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances
(including but not limited to gas,
oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation
or explosives)?
om Frndrnes of Sienifrcance. ..
-
1. Does the project have the potenrial to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
2. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, defintive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future.) -
3. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
62
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
sigruficant.) - - 2L
4. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -- L
63
APPENDIX G
Sample Only
NOTICE CONCERNING AIRCRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Declaration and Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts is made , hereinafter referred to as the "Owner," as developer of certain , County of San Diego, State of California. bY real property situated in the City of
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Owner is the developer and holer of the title to certain real property in the City of , County of San Diego, California, more fully described as:
The property is located approximately miles from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport, City of , San Diego County (the "Airport"), operated by the
County of San Diego, through which are conducted certain aircraft operations on and
about said Airport and over real property in the vicinity of the Airport.
Owner has no control over the operations of the Airport, including the types of aircraft,
flight, the fight patterns of the aircraft, nor the frequency of the flights.
It is the desire of Owner to give notice to any potential purchaser of the real property of
the air flight operation and the fact that purchasers may be subject to overflight, sight and
sound of aircraft operating from the Aixpofi.
The purpose of this notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and futuxe
potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public, military
and private aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental hpcts.
65
NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the above Recitals, as developer and owner of the
property, does, for itself, and its successors and assigns, give the following notice:
1. Owner has and shall develop the property in accordance with Subdivision Tract Parcel
Map (CT/PM- ) approved by the City of , which approval includes
the requirement of the City of , that the development of the property is
consistent with the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of
2. That Owner has no responsibility or control over the operation of the Airport, including
without limitation, the types or number of flight operations, types of aircraft (including
jet aircraft), timing of flight operation, or frequency of flights.
3. That the flight operations to and from the Airport may create significant aircraft
environmental impacts affecting the purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property and
that purchasers, tenants and occupants of the property reside there subject to such
overflight, sight and sound.
4. The property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used,
occupied and improved subject to this Declaration and Notice. This Notice shall run with
the property and shall be binding upon all paxties having or acquiring any right, title or
interest in the property.
5, The purpose of this Notice is to disclose to the fullest extent possible present and future
potential impacts of noise generated by all manner of aircraft including public and private
aircraft which will generate noise and other environmental impacts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration of Notice of aircraft, overflight, sight,
and sound is made this day of , 19-.
STATE OF CALSFORNIA, COUNTY OF ) ss.
on , 19-, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
PerSonally appeared and personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as
Secretary, on behalf of , the corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me
that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of
its Board of Directors.
President and
By:
By:
66