HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-12; City Council; 11677; REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SITES AND TECHNOLOGIESc
s RNlEW OF ALTEWTNE AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SITES
AND TECHNOLOGIES
7. Receive SANDAG report: Review of Alternative Air Carrier Airport Sir
apd Technologies.
ITEM EXfldNATION
The Board of Directors San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
its September 7992 meeting requested SANDAG staff review alternative
carrier airport sites and technologies. The Board also established a set
criteria to use in the review of the sites.
The attached report analyzes the 34 variations of 76 unsolicited alternative
carrier sites in accordance with the approved criteria. A list of the criteria
included along with the methodology used to evaluate alternatives. None
the options successfully address all the criteria established by the SAND,
Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors at their December 20, 7997 meeting voted to acce
and file the report and no future action is expected. The study does n
address the binational airport proposed at Otay Mesa. SANDAG has approvi
the preparation of a master plan for the site. The first portion of the plan u
determine the feasibility of the site from an air,space perspective and
expected to be completed in May. An economic study on locating an airp
on the site is also being done and should be completed in June. If these fv
portions of the study find that the site is acceptable, the ground access portit
of the Master Plan will examine the capital and operating costs needed f
access to the site. This portion of the study is expected to take approximate
None at this time.
7. SANDAG report: "Review of Alternative Air Carrier Airport sites an
technologies" on file in the City Clerk's office.
7 a a
1, 6
REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE
AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SITES
AND TECHNOLOGIES
December, 1991
San Diego
&I
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 921 01
(61 9) 595-5300
Prepared by SANDAG
This report was financed with federal funds from the
Federal Aviation Administration and local funds from the
San Diego Association of Governments Member Jurisdictions
I
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbd, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitar, Eecondido, Imperial Beach, La
Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, Son Marcos, Sentee, Solana Beach, Vista and County of San C
ADVlSORYlLlAlSON MEMBERS: California Department of Tranrponation, U.S. Depament of Defense and TijuanalBaja Callfor
- 0
Board of Directors
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION 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 Carisbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon,
Enunitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside,
Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Bead, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members indude CALTRANS, U.S. Department of Defense,
and TijuandBaja California.
CHAIRMAN: Hon. Jack Doyle
VICE CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Gloria E. McClellan
SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer
CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor
(A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem
CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Leonard Moore, Councilmomber
(A) Hon. Tim Nader, Mayor
CITY OF CORONADO
Hon. Michol Napoliio, Mayor Pro Tem
(A) Hon. Susan Keith, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Gay Hugo-Martinez. Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. J. Rod Franklin, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jacqueline Winteror, Mayor
CITY OF EL. CAJON Hon. Harriet Stackwell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Beverly Millor. Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Councilmember
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Hon. Maura Wiegand. Mayor (A) Hon. Gail Ham, Coonci1memb.r
CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Jeny Harmon, Mayor (A) Hon. Kris Murphy, Councilmomber
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Miko Bixxkr, Mayor (A) Hon. Mud[ Gootho, Councilmember
CITY OF LA MESA
Hon. Art Mdrid. Mayor (A) Hon. Buwy Jurtl Councilmombor
(A) Hon. Jay Mwr, Councilmombor
CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Jamor V. Dorman, Mayor
(A) Hon. Brian Cochran. Councilmember
CITY OF NATIONAL ClTY
Hon. Jess E. Van Deventer, Councilmembor
(A) Hon. Michael Dalla, Councilmombor
CITY OF OCIEANSIDE
Hon. Nancy York, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Melba Bishop, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF POWAY
Hon. Jan Goldsmrth, Mayor (A) Hon. Kathy Mclntyra,, Councilmember
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Judy McCuty, C~ndlmomber (A) Hon. Tom &hr. Councilmember
CRY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Leo Thibadoau. Mayor (A) Hon. Miko Proston, Comndlmomkr
CRY OF SANTEE
Hon. Jack Doylo, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Comncilmomkr
CnrV OF SOLANA BEACH
Hon. Richard Hondlin, Mayor
(A) Hon. Margaret Schkasingor, Councilmember (A) Hon. Cdino Olson, Deputy Mayor
COY OF VISTA Hm. Gloria E. McCkllan, Mayor (A) Hon. bmio Rappapoh Mayor Pro Tom
COUNTY OF SAN DIEQO
Hon. Brian Bilbray, Supcarvisor (A) Hon. Susan CioMing, Supowisor (A) Hon. John MacDonaid, Supervisor
STATE DEW. OF TRAQJSPORTATION
(Advisory Momkr)
A. A. Pierw, Interim Diractor
(A) Jesus Garcia, Dim Eleven Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Liaison Member) Capt Tom Cram, USN, CEC Commanding Offkw Southwort Division
Naval Faadliioa Enginewing Command
WUANA/8AJA CALIFORMU (Advisory Momkr) Hon. Carlos Montejo Favola
Prosidonto Municipal do Tijuana
RevlHd Decembr 4, lWll
e @
I
ABSTRACT
TITLJ3 Review of Alternative Airport Sites and
Technologies
San Diego Association- of Governments
Analysis of Alternative Airport Sites and
Technologies
San Diego Association of Governments
AUTHOR:
SUBJECT:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
NCTMBEROFPAGES: 50
ABSTRACT: The following document reviews thirty-
four variations on sixteen alternative wit sites using criteria adopted by the
SANDAG Board in September of 1991.
Jack Koerper, Special Projects Director
Michael Zdon, Senior Transportation
Planner
CONTACT:
iii
0 e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 ................................... I . INTRODUCTION
Air Carrier Airport Site Alternatives Map ................ 2
Alternative Site Worksheet Matrix ..................... 5
II . CONCLUSIONS 7 ...................................
m., SITES ...................................... 9
Site#l NASNorthIsland ........................ 9
Site #2 Lindbergh Field Expanded ................... 11
Site #3 Wayport Desert Sites ....................... 13
Site #4 NAS Miramar Variations .................... 16
Site #5 Camp Pendleton .......................... 18
Site#6 SilverStrandAirport ....................... 21
Site #7 Salt Marsh Naval Communications Station .........
Site #8 NAS Imperial Beach/Ream FieldTijuana River Valley . . Site #9 Rincon Indian Reservation ...................
Site #10 Mission Bay San Diego River ................. Site #11 Cannel Valley Gonzales Canyon ............... 30
Site #12 Rancho Guejito ..........................
Site#13 ExpandedFblomarSite ..................... 33
Site#15 OfTshoreAirport ......................... 36
IV . ALTERNAl"EflECHNOL0GIES 41
TiltroterAircraft ................................ 41
HighSpeedRail ................................ 42
23
25
27
28
31
35
38
Site#14 Ramona ...............................
Site #16 National City Bayfront .......................
.......................
APPENDIX A
D.O.D. Policy on Joint or Shared Use .................. 41
APPENDIX B
SCAG Response on Alternative Sites ................... 4'
V
1
. 0 0
REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
The following summarizes proposals for alternative
between 1987-1991. Each alternative was reviewed
by the SNAG Board 9/27/91):
1.
2.
Compatible with an operating Lindbergh
Accommodation of at least one 12,000 fi.
system in both directions.
3. Ability to accommodate 25 MAP. (This
would allow the region to accommodate the
Compatibility with DOD policy on joint us:,
following sites:
NAS North Island
Lindbergh Field MCRD option
NAS Miramar
Camp Pendleton
Naval Communications Station IB
NAS Imperial BeacWReam Field
MarchAirForceBase
George Air Force-
Noise compatibility for the surrounding
impacted (65 CNEL or greater).
6. Identification of environmental impacts.
7.
4.
5.
Consistency with land use policy of local
Each site is identified in the following map and
1
CARRIER AIRPORT SITES
ai~ Carrier airports submitted to SANDAl
based on the following criteria (approve
F.eld.
unway with an all weather instrument landh
capacity combined with 15 MAP at Lindber
year 2040 demand of 40 MAP.)
shared use, or abandonment. Applied to 1
;m as judged by number of dwelling UI
agency.
attached matrix.
W a
AIR CARRIER
AIRPORT SITE
ALTERNATIVES 8.n D1-o
1991
This nu0 wu produead by nu
A!%!XXLVIOS OF GO\'ERVItESTS
2
0 0
Alternative Site Worksheet Mat rix
The following methodology was used to evaluate the alternative sites. AU information was gathered from existing documentation completed over the last several years relative to airp01.l
sites. ,
Criterion 1: ComDatibZty . For evaluating a site's compatibility with Lindbergh Field, i
reasonable airspace separation was considered necessary. Alternatives wen
either "compatible" or "incompatible." The only exception was NAS Nortl
Island where compatibility would depend upon parallel runways at NAS Nortl
Island and Limdbergh Field.
Accommodate a 12.000 ft. Runwav. All sites were judged large enough 1
handle one 12,000 ft. runway.
CaDac itv - 25 Million Air Passe neers ('MAP) . Integral to accommodating 2
MAP on one runway was the necessity for a bidirectional instrument landh
system (ns) and a protected glide slope. Those sites which were severe
constrained by topographic features were judged not to be capable
accommodating 25 MAP.
&plication of the Depart ment of Defense Policy. The Department of Defen
policies on joint or shared use and the results of the base closu
recommendations were used to evaluate each site. An interpretation oft
policy regarding each site was not undertaken. Review simply indica1
whether D.O.D. policy applies or does not apply to the alternative.
Currently with respect to the Congressional Commission on Defense B
Closure and Realignment, no military facilities are scheduled to close, reloca
or reduce their mission in San Diego.
Guidelines for joint or shared use compatibility include the following critei
Must be mutually beneficial
The security of military operations, facilities, or equipment will not
Criterion 2:
Criterion 3:
Criterion 4:
compromised.
Military flight operations will not be substantially impaired.
Air safety will not be degraded.
There is no other viable alternative.
3
W 0
Criterion 5: Noise Impact$. Through a computerized mapping process, the 1990 noise
contours for Lindbergh Field were applied to faen sites. The number of
affected residential dwelling units @.U.'s) within the 65 CNEL is given. This
process was used to allow reviewers the ability to compare one site's noise
impact with that of Lindbergh and other altexnatives. The actual number of
residential dwelling units affected by the 65 CNEL would need to be
recalculated with specific runway design configurations at a later time to more
accurately assess the number of dwelling units impacted by air carrier
opemtions.
Environmental ImDact. Relying on existing environmental data, each site is
judged to have "moderate" or "severe" environmenaal impacts. The rating of
moderate is used if the environmental impacts of a site can be mitigated. The
word severe is used if it is thought the environmental impacts represent a
"si@icant unmitigable impact" as defined by the National Environmental
Policy ACT PA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Consistencv with Land Use Policv off Local Agency - . Using adopted land use
agency policies each site was judged to be "consistent," or "inconsistent"
relative to that agency's general land use plan.
Criterion 6:
Criterion 7:
4
2
2 r
In r
In I
2 t
3 5 a
z
a e
II. CONCLUSION€
All sixteen alternative sites present some problem to the region in terns of implementation.
That is, none of the sixteen options successfully address all seven of the criteria established by
the SANDAG Board for the review.
In terns of the technical criteria alone (Le., compatibility with Lindbergh Field, the ability to
accommodate 25 million air passengers (MAP) per year, siting of a 12,000 ft. runway, and a
moderate environmental impact) the following sites are found:
NAS Miramar
Camp Pendleton
Rincon
Camel Valley - Gonzales Canyon
McClellan - Palomar
However, none of these sites meet the land use consistency criterion. That is, in each case the
local land use agency through adoption of their General Plan and in some cases by specific
resolution has indicated its desire not to site a commercial air carrier airport within its
jurisdiction.
Additionally, alternatives for an offshore airport or a "wayport" in the desert represent options
that are likely to be costly, require untested new technological approaches to commercial air
travel, and are likely to have potentially severe environmental impacts.
Regarding the use of George or March AFB, the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) staff was asked to provide a status report regarding the use of those bases
for air carrier airport purposes. A letter dated November 25, 1991 3ted the following: "At
present, there are no sites for a commercial airport which are unar; active consideration by
SCAG. SCAG's current emphasis in on more efficient utilization of existing commercial
airports and on contingency studies for active military airbases. "
The alternative technologies evaluated were tiltmter aviation and high speed rail to sites outside
the region. The review concludes that tiltmter aircraft is an advanced technology for which
there has been no civilian operations or testing. Estimating its impact on aviation travel in the
San Diego region is not possible at this time.
High speed rail when effective generally COM~C~S major urban centers which are spaced 100 to
300 miles apart. Ridership levels on existing rail systems to ahports is generally disappointing.
The County of San Diego will be releasing its analysis of the potential for high speed rail access
to a "wayport" in January, 1992.
7
0 0
In* SITES
1. Site Locat ion: North Island Naval Air Station
Submitted by: James R. Turner, Lyle Desmond Guthrie, J. M. Brenn
Ken S. Coward, Larry Lockhard, Charles E. Cord€
Gaetan R. Maurais, Howard T. Mischel, Barbara Swanson-Sm
Russell M. Nerheinz and Robert H. Stickel
pod Summary:
The proposals for use of NAS North Island break into two distinct categories: those
connect air operations at Lindbergh to NAS North Island, and those that elimi
operations at Lhdbergh but continue to use parking and terminal facilities there for ac
to NAS North Island. In both cases, the proposers suggest the possibility of join
shared use with the Navy and the need for underwater tunnel access, or high speed f
service on the bay to North Island.
All options for a 12,000 ft. runway on North Island would require fill into the ba:
ocean. Proposals for use of NAS North Island range from just operathg wide 1
airplanes on the base to moving all commercial air carrier flights to the site.
md
In those options in which Lindbergh Field operations are terminated and used for lant
access only, there would obviously be no airspace problems between Lindbergh Fielc
NAS North Island. For other options that propose one, two or three runways,
alignment of the runway(s) could directly affect airspace opexation at Lindbergh.
close proximity of NAS North Island to Lindbergh Field indicates that a parallel N
alignment may be the preferred arrangement for ahpace purposes. Runway alignr
that would indicate cross landing or take off paths would reveal a severe airspace pml
Runwav Lena and Capac ity -
The Phase IlI report of the "Commercial Airport Site Selection Study" (February 1
SANDAG) indicates that at least one 12,000 ft. runway could be constructed at NAS
Island. However, it is likely the runway would require some fill in either the t
ocean. Bidirectional precision instrument approach and departure appears feasible
to provide adequate capacity for 25 MAP.
mlication of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense @OD) policy and procedu~~% for the joint atary ant
use of a military installation (Appendix A) apply. As stated in the Phase m
"Commercial Airport Site Selection Study" (SANDAG, FebIuary 1989),
9
0 e
The principal fmding regarding share use, joint use, oir civilian use of
NAS North Island is that air Carrier aviation activity would preclude
accomplishment of the air and sea mission of NAS North Island. The
three protected deep water aircraft carrier berths and the adjacent Mield
are unique features of the air station that would be difficult if not
impossible to replace.
In a letter to SANDAG (December 4, 1991), L. F. Schriefer, Fkar Admiral, U.S. Navy,
states the following regarding use of NAS North Island:
NAS North Island is not part of the base closure plan nor does its
mission provide latitude to accommodate the restrictions imposed by
joint aviation operations
Possibility of significant incompatible noise levels at Naval Training
Center and Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center, Pacific,
as well as establishing an object fnx area and a clear zone in the
navigable channel
Relocating NAS North Island mission to NAS Miramar is unacceptable
beCauSe:
of the locations of NAS North Island and Naval Outlying Landing
Field WOLF), Imperial Beach, with proximity to a ldeep water port
capable of supporting aircraft Carrier berthing
The activity is close to surface amphibious and submarine fleet units
allowing efficient multi-force training exercises
The activity is colocated with the Navy’s largest Naval Aviation
Depot
The incompatibility of tactical fmed wing and rotary wing airctaft
training environment
Noise Imw
preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the CoILfguuation of the runway@ at
North Island at a minimum 6777 to 7248 dwelling units would be affected by noise at 65
CNEL.
Environmental Imma =en
It is likely that the construction of a 12,000 ft. nunway would quire some fWh the bay
or ocean. A full EWEIS would need to be completed as well as a pedt from the Army
A= I
10
0 e
.I
Corps of Engineers and the Califomh Coastal Commission. Any fill of ocean or ba waters is considered a "severe" environmental impact.
One of the major issues related to fd will probably be the effect on the littoral drift c
sand which af€ects surrounding beaches.
Land Use Compatibility
In a letter to SANDAG (February 1990) from the City of Coronado reviewing tk
Alternative Air Carrier Study the following council position was stated by the Mayo
"The City Council concurs with the findings of these reports that a viable site for
regional ahport does not exist within the municipal boundaries of the City of Coronado
2. Site Loca tion: Lindbergh Reld Expanded
Submitted by: Ned Baumer, Thomas P. Faulconer, Win J. Harris, Frank M. Toc
Robert E. Phelps, Benedict H. Tessada and Jack Warner
sal Summary
The proposals for an expanded Lindbergh airfield fall into two distinct categories. Fir
those that expand the facility by acquiring adjacent property and second, not only acquir;
adjacent landside property but also filling in portions of the bay around Harbor Island
additional airport acreage.
Under the first category, proposers suggest that as much as 578 acres can be added to
482 acre airport by relinquishing port leases with Convair, Solar, Teledyne Ryan i
General Dynamics, moving the Naval Training Center and Marine Corps Recruit %
and purchasing the U.S. Post Office on Midway. The second category of options a(
additional acreage by purchasing the Coast Guard air station and filling in the area am
Harbor Island.
ield Comoatrbdltv with Lindbereh F
Since this option expands Lindbergh Field, it does not provide an alternative site wh
could function in parallel with it.
Runwav Len& and Capac&
The only configuration in which a 12,000 fi. runway is possible would require port
of San Diego Bay to be fded near Harbor Island. This would allow a runway IUIU
NW to SE. It is likely structures to the south of the runway @otenWy portion
downtown and the Coronado Bridge, as well as naval WIC in the Bay) would prec
bi-directional precision instrument approaches from the south.
. ..
11
0 0
In 1989 the Port of San Diego completed a study (Airport Development Study - P&C
Technologies) which indicated with some expansion (Le., adding 48 acres from MCRD)
it would be possible to handle 25 MAP on a two runway V shape configuration ai
Lindbergh Field. Even with expanding Lindkrgh it would probably be necessary to fina
an additional site somewhere in the region to meet the 40 MAP demand anticipated in the
middle of the next century.
Application of DOD Policy
Expansion of Lindbergh would require abandonment and transfer of military activities a1
MCRD, Naval Training Center, and potentially the Coast Guard station on Harbor Drive.
None of these facilities is currently on the federal government’s federal base closure list.
Earlier in the year the City of San Diego and the Greater San Diego Chamber oi
Commerce as well as members of the local congressional delegation argued successfullq
for the removal of the Naval Training Center and MCRD from the base cfosures list.
A memo from Maj. Gen. John S. Grinalds, Commanding General, Marine Corp Recruit
Depot, San Diego, dated April 4, 1990 stated the following regarding expansion inta
MCRD:
For the past two years, Secretaries of Defense Carlucci and Cheney have
scrutinized military installations in Southern California for closure or
realignment. None of these studies has recommended closure of NAS
Miramar or MCRD, San Diego. Future land transfers iautho- by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991,
Pub. L. No. 101-189 (1989), require that military property conveyances
be made on a fj& market value basis. Any determination of military
property costs should also include the expense of replacing or relocating
existing military installations and missions.
The City of Chula Vista in a letter (12/10/91) from City Manager John I). Goss states:
While it is true that the City of San Diego Chamber off Commerce and
members of the local congressional delegation argued successfully for the
removal of the Naval Training Center from the base closure list, it is
also my understanding that the closure list will again 0e revisited in a
couplc of years. In addition, it is also my understanding from the press
that the Naval Training Center is subject to a future temporary closure
based upon lack of demand in processing recruits and also as a cost-
saving measure.
12
0 0
Noise ImDact
Prehhary estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the runway(s) a
Lindbergh Field expanded a minimum of 19,603 dwelling units would be affected by thc
65 CNEL or greater.
Environmental Imoact
Construction of a 12,000 fi. runway wouId require some level of fill in the bay nea
Harbor Island. A full EIWEIS would need to be completed as well as a permit from th
Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. Any fill of ocean a
bay waters is considered a "severe" environmental impact. Further, this proposal woull
also impact a 10 acre federally protected California least tern colony on airport property
Land Use ComDatibilifi
On January 24, 1989, the Port of San Diego passed the following policy:
It is recognized that the geographical constraints at Lindbergh Field make
it incapable of accommodating growth in air traffic, which is expected
as the San Diego region continues to develop and prosper.
For planning purposes it is assumed that an opemtional replacement airport will not be available for ten or more years. In the interim, the
Port of San Diego has the obligation to provide additional facilities at
Lindbergh Field in an effort to keep pace with increasing air travel
demands. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is
solely responsible for siting this region's commercial airport in its role
as regional transportation planning agency. Major development of
facilities at Lindbergh Field should not deter the efforts of local
government officials and SANDAG to find an alternate airport site
appropriate for the future of air transportation in the San Diego region,
nor should interim construction at Lindbergh Field be construed as an
effort to perpetuate its use further into the future than is necessary.
The City of San Diego in whose jurisdiction Lindbergh Field lies has mgnized the sit
limitations by its commitment to sponsor a master site plan at Otay Mesa.
3. Site Locat iuq: Wayport
Submitted bv : Paul M. Hunter, Lew Gregory, Frederick C. Orton, Ray D. IM~
13
0 (b
posal Summary
Out of the four submittals on a Wayport the one by Mr. Ray D. Xnnocenti was the most
specific. His proposal contained an initial analysis of a site next to the Salton Sea
reviewed under a contract with P&D Technologies. Another proposal suggested an area
somewhere in the Yuha Basin which begins just east of the mountains near Plaster City.
All proposals have existing Southern California airports feeding the Wayport for long haul
flights. All proposals suggest the need for some form of high speed rail to the site. The
County's current study on the potential of a wayport was not completed in time for staff's
analysis.
The P&D study commissioned by Mr. Innocenti suggested the following specific site:
The site is located 2 to 3 miles south of Salton City, immediately south
of the Salton Sea Airport. The two runway system is positioned west of
Highway 86, between County Route 22 and State Route 78. This places
the runways at approximately a sea level elevation and west of the Tule
and Campbell Washes. This location also places the runways on roughly
parallel topographic contours, thus minimizing grading quirements. In
general terms, an airport site in this location should logically be sited as
far east as possible to minimize the impact of the mountainous tenah to
the west, but west of Highway 86, the Naval property boundary, and the
power lines located to the east and parallel to Highway 86.
ComDatibility with Lindbea
The concept of a "wayport" is different than that of an airport within the region which is
compatible. That is, under a wayport there would likely be additional flights out of
Lindbergh Field to the wayport facility. These additional flights would use limited
Lindbergh Field capacity that might better be used for flights to other fd destinations.
In May 1990, the SANDAG Board adopted fmdhgs relative to the Airport Alternatives
Study which stated in part:
Remote site altematives, such as desert locations, might relieve capacity
problems at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), but they would
not be a reasonable alternative to Lindbergh Field. For the traveling
public residing in the San Diego region to use a desea airport,
signifbut advancements in ground access transportation technology
would be required to overcome the distance and topography. The use of
Lindbergh Field to transport passengers by air to and from a desert
airport would defeat the purpose of alleviating congestion at Lindbergh.
14
0 a
Runwav Le ngth and CaDac ity
Two parallel 12,000 ft. runways appear feasible on the site. The P&D study states th following about airspace consideration:
An evaluation of the airspace surrounding this site revealed the most
severe terrain obstruction to the approach and departure corridors would
be the mountainous peaks located approximated 36 statute miles west of
the airport. The peaks in this area near Julian and Warner Springs reach
elevations of 5,798 feet and 6,533 feet respectively. To clear these
mountain peaks by at least 1,OOO feet, aircraft would need to maintain a
climb rate of approximately 200 feet per mile, if proceeding due west.
This should not be an operating constraint for the vast majority of
aircraft using the airport.
A more severe airspace constraint arises from the proximity of the Naval
Salton Sea Test Base and associated restricted ahpace areas located east
of the proposed site. There are six military restricted airspace areas that
impact the Salton Sea airspace.
Amlication of DOD Policy
Any aircraft operating in the desert area must receive permission to penetrate restriC
military airspace. Depending on the exact location of a wayport a specific airspace SI
would need to be conducted in coordination with the FAA and the military. In a m
from the commanding offcer of the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station to Naval Base
Diego dated September 3, 1991, the Maxine Corps had the following comment :
reviewing a series of wayport sites being studied by the County of San Diego:
All of the locations indicated in the Coffinan Associates' proposal
adversely impact military operations in the region. The entire region
contains a sophisticated family of ranges, low level training mutes, and
special use airspace areas that comprise the cornerstone of the
Department of Defense's air-to-air and air-to-ground training strategy for
the 21st century.
The County of San Diego in its memo to SANDAG dated Decembex 5, 1991, ind
that airspace interference with the military in the desert should not be considered a
flaw." Some desert sites am less detrimental than others and airspace issues cot
coordinated.
Noise ImDaa
Not evaluated, potentially less severe than urban sites.
15
0 m
Environmental ImDacts
The Anza Borrego State Park makes up much of the area directly east of the mountains.
Depending on the exact location of a wayport, a specific environmental review would be
necessary to deternine any potential impact to desert flora, fauna, or endangered species
habitat.
Since all wayport proposals depend on high speed rail for access, additional impacts will
need to be reviewed for R.O.W. and tunnelling through the mountains. Any specific wayport location study would need to include a specific element on high speed transit
access. High speed rail access to a desert site presents potentially severe environmental impacts to sensitive mountaina nd desert areas.
d Use ComDatibility
The counties of Imperial and San Diego are currently mjmating on a joint study for a
wayport somewhere near the San Dieg0Amperia.l County bordler. That study is to be ready
for public review in January, 1992. Because the site is outside the region, land use
compatibility is unknown.
4. Site Locat ion: NAS Miramar
Submitted by : H. Mischler, Robert F. Boque, Les F. Wted, William F. Chana
pod Summary
Several options for joint or shared use at Miramar were sulbnnitted. All would require
coordination with navy operations as they currently exist at NAS Miramar. The mosl
detailed alternative placed two 12,000 ft. runways in the NE comer of 1-15 and SR52 jus1
north of Santo Road and Tierrasanta. A second option places parallel runways south ol
the existing military runways but just north off the existing City of San Diego landfill.
ComDatibilitv with Lindber&
AuMiIamar options are compatible with a continued use of Lindbergh Field.
Runwav Leu (2-
Existing runways at Miramar NAS (24L and 24R) currently have precision instrumen1
approaches from the east. Runways 6L and 6R are not precision approaches from the
west. SANDAG's Phase 1 Air Carrier Airport "Preliminary'Sc~ning of Candidate Sites"
(February 1989) indicated, "In order to meet FAA approach obstacle clearance criteria foi
airspace obstruction, the maximum easterly placement of eastern arrival thresholds fol
16
a *
runways in the east-southwest or east west alignment would be about lo00 feet east o
I- 15. ”
The study concluded that simultaneous precision approaches to two parallel runways fron
the east do not appear feasible. This would apply to both options proposed for Miramar
However, with a single runway it is feasible to meet th’e 25 MAP capacity demand.
&dation of DOD Policy
In a letter to SANDAG (August 31, 1989) VADM David N. Rogers, Deputy Assism
Chief of Naval Operations, stated the following relative to abandonment of MCRD an
NAS Miramar:
Each of the four alternatives under study for possible Lhdbergh Field
e:tmnsion or relocation impacts Navy and Marine Corps activities and
c - .*rations. The alternatives involving Naval Air Station WAS) Miramar
: :I Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) San Diego are not viable
G: :ions. NAS mar and MCRD San Diego are crucial elements in
the San Diego military community and are operationally essential
installations in support of the mission of the Navy. We have no plans
to close, relocate, or reduce the missions of NAS Miramar or MCRD
San Diego. The importance of retaining both of these installations was
recently substantiated by the Defense Secretary’s Commission on Base
Realignment and Closure.
In a memo from Capt. L. G. Pearson, Commanding Officer of NAS Mhmar, to
Commanding Officer of the S.W. Division of Naval Facilities Engineering (April 3,199
the following statement was made on joint or shared use:
Joint or shared use of NAS Miramar and NAS North Island was ruled
incompatible. Both the Navy and Department of Defense have attested
to the uniqueness and need for retaining NAS Miramat. Air Station
officials have also made clear that any relocation of NAS Miramar would
be detrimental to their military mission.
Noise Imm
preliminary estimates indicate! that a joint or shared use runway configuration on the s(
or southeast end of Miramar would affect zero dwelling units in the 65 CNEL. Mo$
the land affected is either industrial or undeveloped military.
Environmental Impact
SANDAG’s preliminary review of envitonmental impact for development of an airp0
the south end of NAS Miramar indicated the following:
17
* e
1. Endangered species and habitat: the southern portion of the site consists of a series of vernal pool complexes immediately to the south of the
existing airfield on the Mesa. Vernal pools are depressions in the soil that
fill with water during the rainy season creating a unique habitat that may contain threatened or endangered plant species, including the endangered
San Diego Mesa Mint. Vernal pools, in addition to being potential habitat
for endangered plant species, are classified as weulands. There is also a
small, fresh-water marsh on the floor of Sa Clemente Canyon,
approximately 1.5 miles west of 1-15. The presence of the Orange-
throated Wptail Lizard among the drainage bottoms and adjacent slopes
and ridges of San Clemente Canyon in the southwestern corner of the Air
Station has been confirmed.
Mima mounds, of potential historical and archaeological significance, are
also interspersed in the vernal pool complexes.
2.
Land Use ComDatibfity
The City of San Diego has stated that joint or shared use of NAS Miramar is contrary to
existing Council policy as adopted June 11, 1990. Resolution R-275883 states in part,
The Council recognizes that continued use of NAS Miramar by the U.S.
Navy will be necessary until such time as the Navy detemines that the
Naval Air Station will no longer be used for military purposes and
manifests its intent to abandon further studies of NAS Mixmar for either
domestic or joint use with the Navy.
5. Site L0c;rt ion: Camp Pendleton
Submitted by :
proposal su mmarv:
There are two variations submitted for use of Camp Pendeton. The fvst would develop
a commercial air carrier airport for joint use 0y Orange and San Diego County on the
Marine Base. This is a concept that was studied by the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) in 1982. The second variation would be to move just the military
operations known as "Fleet Carrier Landing Bractice" (FCU's) from Miramar and El Toro to Camp Pendleton. The removal of these operations from Miramar and El Toro
would then allow joint or shared use of those facilities.
Both variations recommend the use of Stuart Mesa in the southern quadrant of Camp
Pendleton. Stuart Mesa comprises 5700 acres and is located three miles north of
V'Frank Asaro, Jim Bear, Honorable Don aodee (City of Oceanside)
18
0 0
Oceanside and eleven miles west of Fallbrook. The site is accessible by 1-5 and ATSF rai
R.O.W. Presently, the Marine Corps uses this area for its Edson Rifle Range and suppor
facilities.
Compatibility with Lindbereh
For the 1982 SCAG study it was assumed that both Lmdbergh Field and John Wayn
International would be closed so that the Camp Pendleton facility could attract short hau
and long haul flights. In terns of airspace Lindbergh could remain open with a long hat
facility at Camp Pendleton or a joint or shared use facility at Miramar.
Runwav Lea h and Capacity
The design for the Camp Pendleton facility studied by SCAG in 1982 could accommodal
36 MAP and 343,000 annual operations or four runways in an aw 3 west configuratioi
The design of a facility to handle just FCIPs would be different - there appears to t
adequate space on Stuart Mesa to accommodate needed capacity. Runways in the SCAi
study were 11,000 ft. However, it appears that at least one 12,000 ft. runway could k
constructed with ILS approach and departure.
Amlication of DOD Policy
The Deparfxnent of Defense @OD) policy and procedures for the joint dtary and cih
use of a military installation (Appendix A) apply. The 1982 SCAG study concluded th
joint civilian and military operation of a commercial air carrier airport on Camp Pendletc
was possible. The study also assumed all costs to relocate or make compatible milia
and civilian use would be paid from civilian resources.
Some of the impacts to the military included: the need to relocate the Edson Range (i
area used to train 25,000 recruits per year), elimination of 20% of the artillery impa
areas, relocation of the Marine Corps airfield and helicopter operations, and the ability
maneuver aircraft over several training beachheads. The cost to relocate these faciliti
in 1982 dollars was estimated at $503.5 million. The Marine Corps indicated
opposition to the proposal in 1982.
The use of Stuart Mesa for FCLP training is likely to have less land use impact on t
base but similar impacts in terms of noise. A specific study would need to be conduct
on FCLP Operations to determine the exact M~UR of the impact on Marine operations
In a letter to SANDAG (December 4, 1991) from L. F. Schriefer, Rear Admiral, U.
Navy, the following comments were ma& regarding use of Camp Pendleton:
MCB Camp Pendleton’s mission precludes use of its property to
support a commercial airport or use of its air station to accommodate
any FCLP exercises. This activity is a three-dimensional training
asset which must include the associated sea, land, and *ace.
19
0 0
Relocating NAS Miramar or MCAS El Tom FCLP to MCAS Camp
Pendleton would seriously affect the operational integrity of that
activity. MCAS Camp Pendleton’s congested airspace could not
accommodate other activities’ FCLP patterns. Additionally, such exercises would introduce unacceptable noise levels on sensitive
facilities including current and projected on-base housing.
Noise ImDact
The 1982 SCAG study on Camp Pendleton for an option with four runways stated:
The impact of aircraft noise on civilian population and land use will be minimal. This is attributable to the fact that the noise contours extend east-
west in length, reflecting the runway configuration and the designed aircraft
approach and departure paths. Consequently, the high noise impact area will
be almost entirely contained within the boundaries of the military reservation.
Only 1.5 square miles of largely undeveloped civilian land to the east of the
reservation will be within the outer edge of the 60 CNEL contour. Most of
this land is in the unincorporated county areas of Fallbmk and Bonsall, with
the remaining portion in the City of Oceanside. The civilian population of the
impacted area, both cumnt and planned, is estimated at 500-900. Populated
areas to the south of the Camp Pendleton resewation (such as in Oceanside)
may perceive aircraft noise but will be located entirely outside the 55 CNEL
contour, a level fairly commensurate with average ambient noise environments
for urban/suburban communities. .... Noise levels produced by an airport at
Camp Pendleton would significantly impact most of the southern portion of the
military reservation, requiring relocation or noise attenuation of affected
facilities.
Environmental ImDaa
An environmental assessment for the Stuart Mesa site would need to be completed. The
1982 SCAG study did not contain an environmental inventory or analysis. It did,
however, point to a potential problem with “bird strikes” caused by the runway’s location
next to the coastal flyway. It suggested that since there were numerous bird movements
between venal pools, some mitigation in terms of relocating these pools would be
necessary.
d Use ComDatxbw f ..
SANDAG’s adopted 1990 Regional Transportation Plan (WTP) policy Q 9 from the
aviation element reads as follows: “Camp Peudleton should not be considt a suitable
location for a regional commercial airport buse it would not serve tf;~ ,ommercial
20
0 0
aviation demand of the region and the base should be used for relocation or location o
military facilities that are signfimtly impacted by urban encroachment."
The minutes of a February 22, 1989 Oceanside City Council meeting relative to use o
Camp Pendleton reflect the following, "A motion was made and seconded to reaff'im thl
opposition of the Oceanside City Council of any attempt to locate an international airpoi
on Camp Pendleton. Motion approved 5-0."
The City of San Diego through resolution R-275031 adopted January 22, 1990 stated th
following:
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego that, in
recognition of the importance of Camp Pendleton to the region and of the
unique natural resources contained within its boundaries, t'8is council
calls upon Congress to ensure the preservation of Camp Pendleton either
as a Marine Corps training base or, should the base be closed, as federal
parkland preserved as an asset for all the people.
6. Site Loca tion: Silver Strand Airport
Submitted bv :
Proaosal Summary
The most detailed proposal by Mr. Lynch would place two 10,OOO ft. runways separatc
by 2,900 ft. in a SE to NW configuration. Landings would be generally over San Diel
Bay with takeoffs over the ocean. Portions of the bay and ocean would be filled in. TI
site straddles the Navy Amphibious Base and undeveloped portions of the City
Coronado. A second bay entrance south of the site is recommended to provide fill f
portions of the airport. Access to the airport is provided by ferry and a causeway off
1-5 near National City.
ield C0mD-W - with Lindbem F
It appears an airport on the Silver Strand would be compatible with operations
Lindbergh.
Runwav Le nntb and CaDac itv
SANDAG analysis on alternative sites completed in February 1989, entitled "hlbnh
Screening of Candidate Sites," indicates "a one for one trade off in aircraft opentions an air carrier airport (Silver Strand) and at NAS North Island would cause severe impl
on the Navy mission at NAS North Island and reduce capacities of both airports."
Anthony Don Thompson, Bed Arendt, Robert A. Lynch
. ..
21
e m
Amfiation of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense @OD) policy and procedures for the joint military and civil
use of a military installation (Appendix A) applies. The construction of the Silver Strand
airport would require closure of the U.S. Navy Amphibious Base, and a reduced capacity
in terns of airspace for NAS North Island.
In a letter to SANDAG, December 4, 1991, L. F. Schriefer, IQear Admiral, U.S. Navy,
states the following regarding an airport on the Silver Strand:
The suggested commercial airport facility would seriously affect, if
not close, military operations at Naval Amphibious Base (NAVPHIBASE), Coronado. The primary mission of
NAVPHIBASE is to support amphibious, unconventional, on-shore
and riverine warfare, special warfare, and other approved training
related to amphibious activities.
Airport noise impacts would require abandonment of 430 Navy
family housing units.
The proposed location contains signifhnt environmt%tal constraints
including wet lands and a designated federally listed endangered
California least tern habitat (75 acres).
Silver Strand airport air operations would be inconsistent with NAS
North Island and NOW Imperial Beach military air training
programs.
Noise Impact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the final runway
alignments a minimum of 1,308 dwelling units would be aected by noise at the 65
CNEL.
Environmental Imw
SANDAG 1989 review of the Silver Strand site states the following:
Major environmental concerns associated with offshore airpat development at
the Silver Strand site relate to changes to offshore currents and littoral drift
patterns (sand transport) with resulting impacts on beaches north and south of
the site. Development resulting in changes to offshore cumnts and littoral
drift patterns would fall under the provisions of both the Callifornia Coastal Act
of 1976 (which regulates development within the coastal zone), and
’
22
e 0
Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 4(f) (which regulates
development that would affect parks and public lands, including beaches).
Beaches that would be affected on the Pacific Ocean side of the Silver Strand
include (1) beaches along the U.S. Naval Amphibious Base, which are used by
the Navy and Marine Corps for amphibious landing practice, (2) the Silver
Strand State Beach, located south of the Base, and (3) the Coronado public
beach, located north of the Base.
. .. LandUseCo mDaObxhty -
In response to reviewing the "Draft San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Stud
(SANDAG, 1990), a response letter from the City of Coronado (February 1990) statec
The City Council concurs with the frndings of these reports that a viable site for a region;
airport does not exist within the municipal boundaries of the City of Coronado.
In a letter from National City, Planning Director, Roger G. Post, states:
The Silver Strand airport also has a direct effect on National City. The
report states that access to the airport is provided by ferry and a
causeway off of 1-5 near National City. A great deal of idomation is
needed regarding the location and type of improvements proposed. The
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan certainly does not
envision such a situation.
7. Site Locat ion:
Submitted bv :
Salt Marsh - U.S. Naval Radio Station
Theodore M. Ewalt, Ron Graves, Francis E. Hestor, Leland E. Bib€
posal Summary
The proposals generally place two 12,000 ft. runways just north of the City of Imp1
Beach in the City of Coronado. The runways are oriented in an east to west configuxati
straddling the South Bay salt marsh and the U.S. Naval Radio Station. Portions of 1
runway extend into the bay and ocean. One option uses runways only into the oc[
requiring the airport developer to mitigate by enhancing the existing salt marsh habital
the south end of San Diego Bay. The proposals also include a second bay entrance j
north of the airport.
Airplanes would land over the Otay industrial area and take off over the ocean. ACC
would be provided by the trolley and a causeway from 1-5.
23
0 Q
Compatibilitv with Lindbewh Field
An airport just north of Imperial Beach could be compatible with operations at Lindbergh.
Runway Le neth an d Caua city
The proposals call for two parallel 12,000 ft. runways separated by about 1,OOO ft. This
configuration is capable of accommodating 25 MAP.
ADplication of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense @OD) policy and procedures for abandonment of a military
facility apply. Currently, the U.S. Navy Radio Station at Imperial Beach is not listed for
closure or realignment by the President’s Commission.
Regarding the Salt Marsh option, L. F. Schriefer, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy, had the
following comment:
Naval Radio Receiving Facility, Imperial Beach, is strategically located
to provide communication (including cryptic) support essential to our
National Defense posture. The Salt Marsh proposal would require
closure of this facility. On a separate issue, the Secretary of the Navy
reported to Congress on Octokr 27, 1989, that Any development which
has the potential for degradation of this facility’s mission effectiveness
would be unacceptable to the Navy.
Noise Impact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the runways at this
site a minimum of 4,154 dwelling units would be affected by noise at the 65 CNEL.
Environmental ImDaa
On the bay side of this alternative are tidal anal salt marshes including portions of the
Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve and South Bay Biological Study Area. Major environmental
concerns associated with the site as listed in SANDAG’s 1989 Paeliminary Screening of
Sites Report (1989) were:
1. Adverse impact to known endaoged Species andl designated habitat.
Fill in the north portion of the site would completely obliterate a Section
of Eelgrass beds located at Emory Cove. Eelgras is one of the most
protected plants in the United States, In addition, this n- portion of
the site would fill in the shallow subtidal mudflats and diW salt ponds.
Within these areas two endangered and rare species have been sited.
These am the California Least Tern and Relding’s Savannah Sparrow.
24
a 0
Plant communities which have been identified within this site include the
Maritime Sage Scrub and Coastal Dune Sand Plants which are native
habitats and support a variety of animal life, some of which have been
reported as rare and endangered.
Destruction or radical change to a unique estuarine habitat. Replacing such a habitat would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Adverse impact to water quality. Care would have to be taken to ensure that necessary mitigation measures to control pollutants found in airport
storm water runoff are sufficient to protect the fragile habitats in the
2.
3.
area.
4. Development on or near the designated wildlife reser. waterfowl
refuge, and park areas would require a complete DOT ;tion 4(f)
determination. The site would also fall under the provisions of the California Coastal Act.
d Use ComDatibility
In a letter to SANDAG (February 1990) from the Mayor of Coronado reviewing thf
Alternative Air Carrier Study the following Council position was stated: "The Ciq
Council concurs with the findings of these reports that a viable site for a regional airpor
does not exist within the Municipal boundaries of the City of Coronado."
8 Site Loca tion:
Submitted bv:
Imperial Beach Naval Auxiliary Landing FielcUTijuana River Estuar
Betty Meek, Peter A. Hatlem, Robert and Barbara Ambier, Frank Still
msal Summary
The proposals generally show two runways parallel to the Mexican Border. The runway
are '/2 mile apart and the 12,000 ft. south runway is '/? mile from the border. The noxi
runway is drawn in 10,500 feet in length and is separated from the .terminal area by th
realigned Tijuana River which will seme as a flood control channel.
The south side of the airport is protected by the International Bohr with Mexico a
West Border Crossing Highway, the east side by the sewer plant, Tijuana River a
Interstate 5 while the north side is protected by the Imperial Beach Naval Air Station.
The facility would require the closure of the Imperial Beach Navy Auxiliary Land Fie
and the City of San Diego's Brown Field. The runways would be placed over a diverti
flood control channel built to accommodate oveflow of the river caused by flooding
25
0 a
Binational access could be provided by way of the placement of a terminal just south of
the estuary in Mexico.
Compatibility with Lindbereh Field
An airport near the Tijuana estuary and the Imperial Beach could be operated in
conjunction with Lindbergh Field.
Runwav Len& and Capacity
It appears the site could accommodate 25 MAP per year with two runways in an east-west
codiguration.
&plication of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense @OD) policy and procedures for abandonment apply. The
Congress’ Commission on base closures and realignments has not recommended Imperial
Beach Naval Auxllrary Ianding Field for such action.
Noise Imuact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the final configuration of the runways on
the Tijuana estuary, at a minimum 9,346 dwelling units would be affected by 65 CNEL.
Environmental ImDact
Construction of a commercial air carrier airport at this site would have severe
environmental impacts. The site would impact the Tijuana Slough and National Wildlife
Refuge, the Tijuana National Estuarine Sanctuauy, Border Field State Park, and the
Tijuana River itself. Permits would be necessary from the Army Corps of Engineers,
State Fish and Game, Federal Fish and Wildlif‘e and the California Coastal Commission.
The state currently has a policy of no net loss off wetlands. This site is home to many
endangered species as well as rare flora.
dUse- . ..
Many of the region’s agencies responsible for review of activities or development within
wetlands have adopted ordinances to ensure their preservation. A common approach was
developed to ensure continued pmemation and appropriate management of wetlands. In
February of 1991, the SANDAG Board adopted the following wetlands policy:
Each city and the County should have an ordinance(s) which addresses the preservation
and protection of wetlands within their boundaries. This ordinance should include:
26
0 0
a. A statement of intent tha+ at a minimum, there should be no net loss of wetlands acreage or value, and tha - net gain is the long-term objective.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defrniton of wetlands.
Review requirements for all proposed projects involving wetlands, using the 100-year flood plain and the National Wetlands Inventory maps to assist in their identifkation.
Grading, grubbing and clearing requirements as part of the local gmding ordinance, to ensure no destruction of wetlands or wetlands values occurs.
A requirement for a significant buffer, usually 100-feet minimum, around each wetland to protect the wetland values.
b.
c.
d.
e.
9. Site Location: Ri.lcon Indian Reservation
Submitted bv - : David E. Henderson
msal Summam
On a site near -con Springs in a NW to SE cofliguration one 12,000 ft. runway would
be constructed.
ComDatibilitv with Lindberrh Field
This facility could be operated in conjunction with continued operations at Lindergh Field
Runwav Le neth and CaDac ity
There are siflicant topographic features surrounding this site. The 1989 SANDAC
Preliminary Screening Study indicated that,
Access would be provided by way of high speed rail off of 1-15.
Bidirectional precision insmment approaches would be limited because of
aircraft operating restrictions in the area. Aircraft operations to and from an
airport at this site would be constrained and would require circuitous routing
because of the proximity of the site to (1) Mt. Palomar Observatory (fights are
not permitted within a 5-m radius of the observatory) and (2) Restricted Area
R-2503 (Camp Pendleton).
Precision instrument appmhes from the northeast through southeast do not
appear feasible because high terrain would penetrate FAA obstacle clearance
approach surfaces. High terrain to the northeast through southeast includes
elevations up to 2,038 feet above MSL just northeast of the search area,
27
0 e
Rodriguez mountain (3,886 feet above MSL) about 6 m east-southeast, and
Palomar Mountain (5,616 feet above MSL) about 9 nm northeast.
Because of these limitations it is unlikely this site could meet the anticipated demand of
25 MAP.
ApDlication of DOD Policy
The Depmment of Defense policy on joint or shared use does not apply to this site. If
developed, airspace coordination would have to &ur with use of the Marine Corps
airstrip on Camp Pendleton.
Noise Imoact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the configumion of the runway at
Rincon, a minimum of 1,155 dwelling units would be affected by noise at 65 CNEL.
Environmental Imuaa
For this site to work a large amount of grading would be amssary because of the
topography. Potential environmental impacts exist related to pding and scrubbing the site. A specific environmental assessment would be necessary if this site were to be
pursued.
Land Use Co rnuatibiritv
Portions of this site are on the Rincon *Indian Reservation and would come under the
review of the Rincon Indians.
10. Site Loca tion:
Submitted by :
Mission Bay - San Diego River Charnel
RaIph Junge, Guy J. huss, James Merino
ProDoSal:
This concept uses Mission Bay Park and portions of the San Diego River west of 1-5 to
accommodate two 12,000 ft. runways. One configuration shows one runway beginning
near Friars and Sea World Drive and extending west to the Hyatt IsRandia, with a parallel
runway beginning near Friars and 1-5 extending west to Hospitality Point. Variations
submitted show the runways further north on Fiesta Island or further south over the San
Diego River. Quivira Basin would be relocated to the mouth'of the San Diego River
behind Dog Beach. Fiesta Island would provide 50 acres of parking and terminal space.
28
0 e
Comuatibilitv with Lindbere h Field
Airspace coordination with continued use of Lindbergh will depend on the alignment of
the runway@).
Runwav Lend and CaDacity i
With fill and the relocation of Mission Bay Park services and facilities it is possible to
place one or two parallel 12,000 ft. runways on the site.
ADplication of DOD Policv
The Department of Defense policy does not apply.
Miramar NAS, Montgomery and Lindbergh Field will need to be worked out.
Noise Impact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the runway, at i
minimum 325 dwelling units will be affected by noise at the 65 CNEL.
Environmental Impact
Construction of a commercial air carrier airport at this site would have seven
environmental impacts. The site would impact portions of the bay through necessary fill
and wetlands which are part of the San Diego River estuary. Permits would be necessar
from the Axmy Corps of Engineers, State Fish ihd Game, Federal Fish and Wildlife, an
the California Coastal Commission. The state and region currently have policies &
relate to no net loss of wetlands.
LandUseCo mDatrbht'y -
Mission Bay Park was dedicated in 1962 by the City Council in accordance with the Cil
Charter to preserve the area as a park in perpetuity.
The fmt runway codigumtion described as extending from Friars Road and Sea Worl
Drive to the Hyatt Islandia would cut across areas designated by the 1978 Mission Ba
Park Master Plan for park and shoreline use, boat slip facilities, semi-public or pub&
facilities (Sea World), and guest housing.
The second runway configuration described as extending from Friars Road and 1-5
Hospitality Point would cut across areas designated by the 1978 Master Plan for gue
housing, wildlife preserve, semi-public or public faciliteis, park and shoreline, and ba
slip facilities.
In addition, some of these areas are leased by the City to private parties for various US listed above. An airport would be incompatible with existing land use designations.
Airspace coordination between
. ..
29
rn
11. Site- tion: Camel Valley - Gonzales Canyon
Submitted by - :
pror>osal su mmarv
The site lies on a ridgeline south of Gonzales Canyon and Camel Valley on 1500 acres.
Black Mountain road currently runs east-west along the ridgeline. The site would have
two parallel runways, one 12,000 ft. the other 10,000 ft. aligned at 270".
Parking and vehicle access would be south of the site off of SR 56. Light rail access
would be provided off of 1-5 and 1-15.
Compatibility with LindberPh Field
This site could be operated in coordination with Lindbergh Field.
Runwav Le ngth and Capac ity
Because the runways are separated by a shorter distance than FAA quires, simultaneous
instrument approaches on the parallel runways would not be possible. However, 25 MAP
is achievable on the site.
mlication of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense poiicies and procedures for joint or shared use do not apply
to this site.
Noise Impact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on ;he actual runway confguration a
minimum of 3,640 dwelling units will be affected by the 65 CNEL
Environmental Im~a
This site is adjacent to the San Dieguito River valley. Additional study would need to be
completed to see what impact this site would have on the river valley.
David B. Ragland and Michael J. Schrepf
5
d Use Co mDatab&ty ..
Gonzales Canyon currently is par& of the City of San Diego'a; Wrban Reserve near what
is now Carmei Heights. It is likely development of an airpofl will incnxse development
pressure on the surrounding areas. me city of san Diego'pmg department reports
that (12/4/91):
30
0 0
The general area described in this proposal is designated by the City of
San Diego as future urbanking and would be inconsistent with any
designation that would promote immediate development. The western end of the proposed runway intrudes into an area designated planned
urbanizing -- currently being developed with single family homes. In fact, all areas west of the runway could be described as predominately
residential. Torrey Pines High School is located less than a mile west
of the proposed runway. An airport would be incompatible with existing
land use designations.
The City of Del Mar in a letter to SANDAG from J. D. Sandoval (12/3/91) states:
The City uld be concerned with the sitir; of facilities SUC? as the
Carmel Vz. 2y-Gonzalez Canyon alternative R iich could have si-dicant
detrimental impacts on the San Dieguito River Valley. It is our concern
that this location would destroy the habitat of the river valley. This
alternate location's reliance upon State Route 56 and the inducement for
increased development that the airport would provide would place a large
demand on public services (Le., beach use) in Del Mar.
In a letter from the City of Solana Beach (11/25/91), Michael W. Huse, City Manager
states: "The City is an active participant in the San Dieguito River Valley Park Join
Powers Agency and the proximity of the Carmel Valley-Gonzales Canyon altemative (No
11) to the river valley is of concern."
12. Site Lmat ion: Rancho Guejito
Submitted by: James H. McWhorter
msal Summary
Rancho Guejito is approximately seven miles east of Escondido and Interstate 15. The Sa
Diego Wildlife Animal Park lies to the southwest of the project in San Pasqud Vdej
Cleveland National Forest bounds Rancho Guejito on the east. The La Jolla India
Reservation is adjacent to the study area on the north. The Rincon Resewation to th
northwest and the San PasquaI reservation to the west are nearby but not adjacent. Th
primary access to Rancho Guejito is Lake Wohlford Road - Valley Center Highway S6 which branches eastward from Escondido. Other public access routes can be develope
from State Highway 76 on the north and State Highway 78 on the south and from tl
Pam0 Valley on the east.
31
a
This site was reviewed for a commercial air carrier airport during SANDAG's 1981
Airport Update Study, and for a general aviation airport in 1984 in a study entitled
Evaluation of Additional General Aviation Airport Sites. It is the last intact rancho left
in the State of California, in single ownership, and comprises an area of some 35,000
acres.
Compatibility with Lindbereh - Field
This site could be operated in coordination with Lindbergh Field.
Runwav Le neth and Capac' Ity
Because of surrounding mountains pIwious pmposals for runway alignments have been
in a SW to NE configuration in an am on the ranch known as Sycamore Flats.
SANDAG's 1984 evaluation of the site stated, "The primary constraint of this site is its
inability to provide instrument landing capability with present technology." Pine
Mountain just to the north and Black Mountain just to the east both reach over 4,000 ft.
constraining the available airspace into the site. Without ILS it is unlikely this site could
accommodate 25 MAP.
Amlication of the DO I) Policy
The Department of Defense policy and procedures for joint or shared use do not apply to
this site.
Noise ImDact
Preliminary estimates indicate that dejxnding on the configuration of the runway(s), at a
minimum 1,632 dwelling units would be affectted by noise at the 65 CNEL.
Environmental Im~act
Extensive work was completed in 1974 in I study prepared by the State Parks and
Recreation Department entitled "Rancho Guejito Feasibility Study." The Parks
Department at that time recommended purchase of that property as a state resource. Their
report cites the following about the property:
The area has significant archeological and historic vdues and is the only
remaining intact Mexican land grant in southern Califonnia.
The study area also contains si@imt floral and faunal resources of
considerable diversity. Plant communities include southern oak woodland,
chaparral, grassland, and riparian woodland. The && of Engelmann Oak at Rancho Guejito are possibly the finest to be found anywhere. Wildlife
include eagles, mountain lions, and deer.
32
* e
The study has outstanding geologk features typical of the Peninsular Ranges.
Large boulders and outcroppings of granitic and crystalline rock give evidence
of the underlying southern California batholith.
Land Use Compatibility
The site is currently located in an agricultural preserve. Until just recently, it was under
a State of California Williamson Act Contract which required land to remain in agricultural
use for ten years. That has now expired. The State Department of Parks and Recreation
still considers it a potential site for acquisition but presently has no funds for purchase.
13. SiteLocat ion: Expanded McClellan Palomar A_i; mort
Submitted by: C. W. Goedecke
wsal Summary
This option would expand the existing McClellan-Palomar aixport east across El Camino
Real. El Camino Real would remain as a tunnel underneath the airport. McClellan-
Palomar Airport is currently operating as a general aviation airport within the City of
Carlsbad. The ahport is operated by the County of San Diego.
Compatibilitv with Lindbergh Field
This site could be operated in conjunction with Lindbrgh Field.
Runway Le ngthandcapac ity -
Purchasing developed property to the east of the airport would be necessary to construct
a 12,000 ft. runway. The existing runway is approximately 5,000 ft. long. The airport
sits on 255 acres currently and has ILS landing capability from the east. It appears a
facility could be developed at Palomar to attain the needed capacity of 25 MAP.
Amlication of DOD Policy.
The Department of Defense policy and procedures for joint or shared use do not apply.
Noise ImDact
Preliminary estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the runway, it would
be possible to design the facility so that no residential dwelling units would be affected by a noise at 65 CNEL.
33
W W
Environmental Itiuact
An enviromental assessment would need to be conducted to determine if there were my
known severe environmental impacts. One of the major concerns of surrounding
communities is noise.
Land Use Compatibility
The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors has adopted (10/6/87) the following policy
regarding McClellan-Palomar Airport:
1. Application will not be made for a full Airport Operating Certificate.
A second runway at the airport will not be constructed.
The length of the existing runway will not be extended.
The airport will operate in compliance with State or Federally
mandated noise standards.
Aircraft noise will continue to be monitored including Single Event
Noise Exposure Levels (SENEL), in the airport referral area as
described in the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Noise sensitive areas will be identified and included hi the airport's
noise abatement program.
The pilot education program for noise abatement procedures will
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
be updated annually.
8. The maximum gross aircraft weight will not exceed 60,OOO
pounds.
The City of Carlsbad has passed the following resolution related to McClellan-Palomar
Airport on March 6, 1984: ". . . , be it resolved the City Councill of the City of Carlsbad
that the City Council policy is that McClellan-Palomar Airport continue to be designated
as a General Aviation facility and that the City Council opposes any expansion of said
airport. "
Any expansion would need to be approved by the voters of the City of Carlsbad. The City
of Vista, in a letter to SANDAG (November 26,1991) from Jack'Larhar, Senior Planner,
states: "Expansion of Palomar airport may violate the noise provisions of the City of
Vista's General Plan. A thorough study would have to be completerl to determine the
extent of the impact."
34
0 a
The City of San Marcos in a letter (December 3, 1991) from R. W. Gittings (City
Manager) states: "The City of San Marcos concurs with the position of the City of Carlsbad contained within the report regarding an expanded Palomar Airport - the City
would be opposed to any such consideration. "
14. Site Location: Expanded Ramona
Submitted bv: Robert L. nrley
pod Summary
This option would expand the existing general aviation airport at Ramona. Ramona
Airport is located approximately 27 miles northeast of the City of San Diego central
business district. The airport is a 346-acre general aviation airport, with a single runway,
owned and operated by the County of San Diego. Currently, there are approximately
80,000 operations per year at Ramona.
ComDatibilitv with Lindbergh
This site could be operated in conjunction with Lindbergh Field.
Runw av Length and Capac i ty
A 12,000 ft. runway could be constructed using land to the west of the existing facility#
However, airspace obstructions for ILS landings existed to the east of the runway.
Problems also exist with existing operations at Miramar which would interfere witt'
takeoffs toward the west out of Ramona. Because of these issues the potential for use ol
Ramona as an air Carrier airport was dropped during the initial screening of alternative!
for SNAG'S 1990 "Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study." Because of thes
constraints it is unlikely this facility could accommodate 25 MAP.
Ulication of DO D Policy
The Department of Defense policy and procedures for joint or shared use does not appl]
to this site. However, there would be airspace conflicts with existing operations at NA!
NAS Miramar.
Noise Impact
Prelimi~~~ estimates indicate that depending on the configuration of the runway(s), at
minimum 1,489 dwelling units would be affected by noise at 65 CNEL.
35
0 e
Environmental Impact
An environmental assessment would need to be conducted at this site to determine if there
were any severe environmental impacts.
d Use ComFatibility
The County of San Diego reports that in 1989 the FAA designated Ramona Airport as a
reliever airport for Lindbergh Field. Reliever airports are defined as airports designated
by the FAA as having the function of relieving general aviation congestion at a commercial
service airport and providing more general aviation access to the overall community.
A master plan is currently being prepared for Ramona Airport which provides for future
industrial development around the airport, extension of the existing runway by 1,950 feet,
and construction of a second parallel runway. The master plan envisions the continued use
of Ramona Airport as an attack base for the U.S. Forestry Service during fm season, and
expanded capabilities to support general aviation activities.
15. Site Location: Offshore Airport
Submitted by : Donald A. Innis,'John T. Nichelson, Peter A. Hatlem, Richard G.
Autry, Dorm E. Hutton
sal Summary
In 1972 SNAG (0) commissioned a study to review the potential for an offshore
airport. At that time the conclusion was the costs outweighed the benefits of such an option. Recent proposals for an offshore airport include the use of "floating" technology,
that is, a st~cture tied to the ocean floor but effectively floating on the surface of the
water. It is argued this new technology changes the cost effectiveness and environmental
concerns of an offshore airport potential for San Diego.
The floating airport proposal would be for an airport somewhere three to five miles off the
coast, with access by way of an ocean causeway. The most detailed concept for this
approach has been submitted by Donald A. his, owner of his-Tennebaum Architects.
His concept includes a pneumatically stabilized platform, a subsurface system of tethers
and the ability to transform the ocean's waves ins0 usable energy. The pneumatic system
does not fight the sea's energy but absorbs it. Specifically,
The pneumatic floatation and stabilization system used for this platform has,
as its smallest component, a prefabricated concrete cylinder 20 feet in diameter
and 40 feet high capped with a concrete cylinder head on top and open to the
sea on the bottom. There are four orifices in each cylinder for the purpose of
cross feeding air to their adjacent cylinders. 81 of these components are
36
0 e
bundled together and launched forming a moduIe 180 feet square. It will require 300 of these modules to construct the airport. A concrete deck 16 feet
above the cylinder head deck is fabricated at the launching site to Seme as
flight deck, apron and main tenninal level. The area below may serve as parking garage, mechanical service, baggage handling, freight, ground transit,
catering kitchens, etc.. . ,
ComDatibilitv with LindberPh Field
An offshore facility could be located so as to allow compatible use with Lindbergh Field.
Runwav Le ngth and Camc ity
An offshore facility could be built to a minimum standard of one 12,000 ft runway capable
of ILS approach and departures and accommodating 25 MAP.
Amlication of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense policies and procedures for the joint or shared use do not
apply. Airspace conflicts with military operations would depend on the actual location of
an offshore facility.
Noise ImDact
If sited three to five miles off the coast it is unlikely that any dwelling units would be
affected by 65 CNEL or greater.
Environmental Impact
Four methods of offshore construction were considered in the 1972 SANDAG (CPO) d
(that apply to all of the offshore alternatives): (1) conventional earth or rock fd, (2) p.l
or caisson supported deck, (3) dike and polder, and (4) floating structure. At that time
Travis, Verdugo, Curry & Associates (engineers to the study) concluded that conventiona
fill techniques, which involve land reclamation by placing fd materials in shallow wate
areas with a suitable peripheral marine structure to control erosion, would be the mos
viable means of constructing this offshore site. The peripheral structure may includ
sheet piling, armor revetments, or some similar erosion contra1 methods.
If any of the f- three options were used for offshore development there would be majc environmental impacts that relate to changes to offshore cumnts and littoral drift patten
(sand transport) with resulting impacts on beaches north and south of the sit(
Development resulting in changes to offshore currents and littoral drift patterns would f2
under the provisions of both the California Coastal Act of 1976 (which regulates tl
development within the coastal zone), and Department of Transportation (DOT) Sectit
37
0 @
4(9 (which regulates development that would affect parks and public lands, including
beaches) .
Impacts from a floating airport have never been fully evaluated. However, proponents of
the alternative argue a floating airport would have minimal degradation on the marine
environment. An article by John Nichelson entitled "The Feasibility of a Floating Airport
Offshore San Diego" states:
The rational behind the statement (minimal degradation) comes from the
fact that if the structure was floating it would only quire cables to
tether it to the sea floor bottom. Thus, the water column below the
platform would be relatively free of obstructions which wuld otherwise
impede natural water movement patterns and cause the accumulation of
large amounts of sediments (which would further impede natural water
movement patterns).
If an offshore site was being considered additional study would be necessary to determine:
effect on adjacent beaches, marine environment (including migration of gray whales), and
the littoral drift of sediment.
Land Use Co mDatibility
At issue is whether an offshore airport would fall under the jurisdiction of state or fedexal
agencies. If far enough offshore, it could even be in international waters. The legal
regulatory issues related to an offshore airport would need to be fully explored before the
option could be selected.
16. Site Lacat ion: National City - Chub Vista Bayfmnt
Arthur J. Lampe Submitted by : -
This option would place a runway(s) on the bayfront off of National City and Chula Vista.
AircI.aft would land generally over the Sweetwater River, and takeoff on runways built on fa in the bay to the east.
CompabbW . .. with Lindbergh Field
This facility could be operated in conjunction with Lindbergh Field.
38
0 0
Runwav Leneth and CaDacitv
SANDAG analysis on alternative sites completed in February 1989, iipreliminary
Screening of Candidate Sites," indicates "a one for one trade off in aircraft operations at
an air carrier aixport (near the Silver Stmnd) and at NAS North Island would cause severe
impact on the Navy mission at NAS North Island and reduce capacities of both Wrts.''
Application of DOD Policy
The Department of Defense @OD) policy and procedures for the joint military and civil
use of a military installation do not apply. However, the construction of a National CityKhula Vista bayfront airport would reduce capacity in terms of airspace for NAS
North Island.
Noise ImDact
Preliminary estimates indicate that dependmg on the confguration of the fd runway
alignments, a minimum of 730 dwelling units would be affected by noise at the 65 CNEL.
Environmental Impact
SANDAG 1989 review of the offshore or bay loations states the following:
Major environmental concerns associated with offshore airport development at
the Silver Strand site relate to changes to offshore currents and littoral drift
patterns (sand transport) with resulting impacts on beaches north and south of
the site. Development resulting in changes to offshore currents and littoral
drift patterns would fall under the provisions of both the California Coastal Act
of 1976 (which regulates development within the coastal zone), and
Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 4(f) (which regulates
development that would affect parks and public lands, including beaches).
. .. Land Use CompaQbhty
Development of this option would require a revision to adopted land use designations and
plans on the bayfronts of National City and Chula Vista. In a letter to SNAG
(December 3, 1991) National City's Planning Director, Roger G. Post, states:
The site entitled National City - Chula Vista Bayfront proposes runways
over the Sweetwater River and on a section of future bay fd to the east.
A careful study of this proposal would raise numerous concerns including
excessive noise levels, land use compatibility and disruption of sensitive
habitat areas. National City's General Plan designates much of this area
as Open Space; airport runways would not be consistent with this
General Plan designation.
39
0 e
Chula Vista in a letter to SANDAG (December 10, 1991) from John D. Goss, City
Manager, state the following relative to the National City/Chula Vista bayfront alternative,
Environmental
The extensive analysis of the Chula Vista Investors' proposal identried
significant impacts from a project of far less intensity. While Mic,
land use compatibility, visual, noise, and air quality impacts are
apparent, the most important constraints are the biological, hydrology,
and specie related issues at the site adjacent to the Federal Wildlife
Reserve.
Land Use
The land use issue would be a major and complex variable. The two
cities jurisdictions are overlapped on the site by San Diego Unified Port
District and the Califomia Coastal Commission zoning authority. The
area in Chula Vista is also in a Redevelopment Project area. The City
of Chula Vista would have serious concerns about the airport use impact
on adjacent parcels.
Economic Development
The issue of economic impact on the local economy would be a
significant factor in any analysis. The proposal could conceivably have
both a positive and negative influence on future revenues to the City of
Chub Vista.
ReCIWtr 'OdPtUk
The Bayfront is conceptually perceived as primarily a recreation-oriented
visitor/commercial area. The development of parks and access adjacent
to the Bayfront has been a focus of local planning efforts by both the
Port and the City.
40
a 0
IV. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The two technologies researched for this review include tiltrotor aircraft and high speed rail.
The following is a discussion of these technologies.
Tiltrotor Aircraft
The tiltrotor is an advanced technology aircraft that combines the vertical takeoff and landing
capabilities of conventional helicopters with the enroute cruise speed, cabin size, and payload
carrying capacity of fmed-wing turboprop aircraft. It has a projected range of approximately
600 miles and a cruise speed of 300 mph. Six conceptual models of civil tiltrotors (CTR) have
been studied by its manufacturers, Bell-Boeing Helicopters, which vary in size from 8 up to 75
passengers. Two test aircraft, have been flying since 1977, and the military’s V-22 Osprey is
undergoing flight testing since its fmt flight in March, 1989.
No tiltrotor aircraft have been built for civilian operations or testing as of 1991. Bell-Boeing has initiated the civil certification process by FAA, and anticipates that it will be complete<
before the year 2000. FAA has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department o
Defense to obtain data from the V-22 Osprey test prow for use in the civil certifkatio~
process.
The need for a civil demonstration program utilizing V-22 Osprey aircraft has been expresse
by numerous agencies, however, no commitments to fund or sponsor such a program have bee
made, and the U.S. Navy has not offered to make any V-22 aircraft available for such
Program.
A major factor affecting the schedule of certification and development of the civil tiltrotor €-
Bell-Boeing is the future of the V-22 Osprey. If that program is canceled by the Departme
of Defense, then much of the data FAA had proposed using will not be available. In the eve
of cancellation of the V-22 program, no specific alternative schedule has been proposed by Bel
Boeing, however, it is anticipated that the CTR program would be significantly delayed, at
minimum.
Several important factors regarding the civil tiltrotor are not known at this time, including
I
Whether the military will produce and operate the V-22 Osprey
How would FAA obtain Certifcation data without the V-22 program
A fm schedule for FAA certifkation and civil production
Actual acquisition, operating, and ownership costs of the CTR
The final configuration and size of production model CTRs
Actual CTR performance characteristics and capabilities
Measured CTR noise data incorporated into FAA’s computer models
The schedule and funding for development of the infrastructure network
The conclusions and recommendations regarding CTR feasibility to be compiled b
national public-private coalition proposed by NASA in its Phase II Study
41
0 e
No single agency or company has the resources or the responsibility to provide all of the
infomation listed above. It will require extensive coordination between the tiltrotor’s
manufacturers, FAA, NASA, Congress, Department of Defense, and potential operators, to
resolve these issues.
Source: Civil 7iltrotor Aircrafr Feasibilitv Study. Gzlijornia Dept. of Transportation
Contract No. 63J793. June, 1991.
High S& Access to Abort
In 1984 American High Speed Rail Corporation pmposed a High Speed Rail (HSR) project
connecting San Diego to LAX airpOrt in Los Angeles. A multi-billion dollar project, it
collapsed in part because of its inability to substantiate patronage forecasts and adequately
address environmental issues.
High speed rail is generally defmed as Us that travel faster than 125 mph. All HSR systems
operating revenue service are conventional steel wheel on rail. This includes the Shinkansen in
Japan (1964), the German Intercity System known as ICE (1979), the French Train, Tres Grand
Vitesse TGV (1981), and the Italian ETR 500 (1990). Spain hopes to introduce its high speed
rail system in time for the 1992 Olympics in Madrid.
Experimentally a non-steel wheel system known as Magnetic Levitation has been researched
since the mid 1930’s. Magnetic Levitation or Maglev has been most fully explored by the
Germans, although the United States has invested h research in the mid 1960’s and more
recently with efforts by the U.S. Center for Transportation Remh at Argonne National
Laboratory. The currently passed Surface Transport Act of 1991 allocates 750 million dollars
to the establishment of an operating MAGLEV system. The location of a corridor has not yet
been decided.
Maglev, through a series of electro-magnetic devices, guides a vehicle on a frictionless guideway
at speeds that are hindered only by air resistance. A test track in West Germany has run Maglev
vehicles at speeds in excess of 300 mph.. Construction costs for Maglev systems are generally
felt to be higher than steel wheel or steel rail because the entire guideway must be fitted, in
effect, with electromagnetic devices. Coffey and Johnson of the Argonne Laboratoq estimate
construction costs at $15M/mile minimum. The California-Nevada High Speed Rail project (LA
to Las Vegas) which has recently reduced its planning efforts due to lack of funds, has estimated
Maglev costs at about 25% higher than stml wheel mil.
Criteria for Hiyh SDeed Rail
In a 1983 study completed by the office of Technology Assessment (OTA) entitled, ILS,
Passenper Rad ’ Technoloei~, several factors were considered essential to the development of
high speed rail:
42
0 0
Connections of urban areas with high population and high population density.
A distance of 100 to 300 miles for the route.
Urban areas with a well developed local transit feeder system.
High $peal Rail to a WavDort
In research completed by SCAG in July 1991 entitled Southern California High Speed Ra
Feasibility Study, the following observations were given relative to HSR access to an airport
0 Ridership levels on existing rail systems to airports nationally and internationally have nc
been high enough to justlfy the cost of providing such service. It is unlikely that airp0
access via HSR service, particularly as a stand along project is feasible.
The added cost for using high speed rail for conw
to trip time, and gets away from the philosophy
airport access 'en little utility, ad(
y center to city :nter travel.
To attain high speed, new rail systems have to be touy grade separated. This is usually do1
on an elevated guideway or on a tunnel. This requires a high initial capital cost and, in tern
of developing an acceptable cost effectiveness ratio, a higher number of passengers than wou
be drawn to a remote airport or wayport.
The County of San Diego will be releasing its analysis of the potential for high speed rail acce
to a wayport in January, 1992.
43
e 0 APPENDIX A
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. 0. c. 20350
SECNAVINST 3770. op-51 25 Jun 1976
SECNAV INSTRUCTION 3770.2
From: Secretary of the Navy
Sub]: Joint milltar:, and civil use of Navy and Marine Corps
Ref: (a) Sec. 1107. (a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
aviation installations
(49 USC 1507 (a))
(b) Sec 12. (e) of the Federal Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (49 USC 1712 (e))
1. Purpose. This instruction establishes policy and procedur
for the loint military and civil use of Navy and Marine Corps aviation installations.
2. Authorit . References (a) and (b) provide, in part, that
be made available for public use under such conditions and to extent as the head of the department or other agency having ji diction thereof deems advisable and may by regulation prescr il and "The Department of Defense shall make military airports ar airport facilities available for civil use to the extent feas
3. Controlled joint use of Navy and Marine Corps av tion installations is permitted when requested by an authorizc agency if it is determined that:
navigation --+ acilities owned or operated by the United States n
Policy.
a. such an arrangement will be mutually beneficial,
b. the security of military operations, facilities, or et ment will not be compromised,
c. impaired,
d. air safety will not be degraded,
e. there is no other reasonable alternative (such as an
military flight operations will not be substantially
existing or planned civil airport in the area), and
governmental agency willing and able to assc
inherent in such joint undertakings, includ: tures for parking areas, taxiways, terminal
facilities, if required.
f. the proposed joint user is an author;T%d state or loc
the obligation zapital expend Aintenance, and
*
Y z 45 5 :!@ % E
''?(.d
w W
SECNAVINST 3770.2 2 5 JUN 1976
4, Request (Content and Procedures)
a. Joint military and civil use of a Navy or Marine Corps aviation installation will be considered only upon the request of an authorized governmental representative of a state, county,
city, etc. To initiate a proposal for joint use, the request must
be submitted to the commanding officer of the installation who
will immediately forward copies to the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Code 205); Chief of Naval Operations (Op-51) , or the Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code AAJ), as appropriate; and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Logistics). Such requests will be considered and evaluated on an individual basis by all reviewing levels within the chain of command.
b. A request or proposal must include the following:
proposed, including estimated type and number of aircraft and annual number of commercial operations, if applicable.
possible community objections, if applicable.
(1) A full description of the nature of joint use being
(2) An estimate of local jurisdiction support, including
(3) Evidence of compatibility of the proposal with state
(4) A statement that any costs associated with prepara-
and federal system plans, and
tion of an environmental impact statement, if required, will be borne by the requestor.
5. Evaluation
a. Upon receipt, the installation commanding officer will, in coordination with the appropriate engineering field division of the Naval Facilities Eng ineec ing Command, make a preliminary eval-
uation and forward the request, evaluation, and recommendations through the chain of command.
b. If the preliminary evaluation indicates that joint use may be feasible ;. the installation commanding off ices should advise the requestor to be prepared to offer the following additional information :
(1) of civil operations , The source of resources to guarantee continuing costs
46
I e 0
SECNAVI: :T 3770.2
2 5 JUN =
(2) Potential expansion anticipated,
(3) Evidence of load factors to support any proposed
(4) Air carrier or Air Transport Association verificatio of commercial requirements.
6. Approval. Approval authority for joint use agreements is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Logistics).
commercial operations, and
/- ic/ p A. /I;: Y
/, Jack 5. Borer9 Assf$,tant secretary of tae lQae (xbstallations a Logistios)
D is tr ibut ion :
SNDL A1 (Immediate Office of the Secretary) (ASN(1LL) (5))
09B2, 09B26, 09R, 04, 04E, 44, 402, 05, 05R, 50,
51, 513, 515 (lo), 52, 524 (lo), 59, 597, 98, anc
983, only)
A3 (Chief of Naval Operations) (Op's 00, 09, 090,
A4A (Chief of Naval Ma ?rial)
A6 (Headquarzers U. S Marir,e Corps)
21A (Fleet Commanders 1.7 Chief)
24A (Naval Air Force Commanders)
42B ( Functional Wing Commanders ) c2 (Naval Officers at Air Force Activities)
(NAVREP Southern Region; NAVREP Eastern Region; NAVREP Southwestern Reg ion; NAVREP Western Reg ioi and NAVREP Pacific Region, only)
Bases Pacific, only)
c43 (Miscellaneous) (Deputy Commander, Marine Corps
FF1 (Naval District Commandants) FF4 (Naval Air Facility CNO)
FA6 (Naval Air Stat ion LANT)
FA7 (Naval Station LANT) (Keflavik, Mayport, and Roosevelt Roads, only) FB7 (Naval Air Station PAC)
FBlO (Naval Staticn PAC) (Midway Islar; and Adak, only)
47
s APPENDIX a
*
# @,s3 K
Iomcun cauFoonia ~lrll~ciam oc -unmmt 8 West Seventh Street,lZth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 0 (213) 236-1800 a FAX (213);
EXECUTIVE COMMITfEE
F dent F ,VmnmCoumy loba npn. svprnwr
Fin Vice mt
c 3ry J >LonpvlllqMuyor
sccald VIocRUldsnt Mr. Ken Sulter Executive Director RmIm A SmcS$%k,
I bg&covnty San Oiego Association of Governments
M-~A~~Q)O*C~~~W~~~ 401 B Street, Suite 800
c JXC COUUY San Diego, CA 92101
R.atdc County Dear Mr, Sulrer:
In response to an inquiry from your staff, we are responding with s- sarrdmocounty
c sd~~gda~auty this letter describing the status of new airport sites which have recently been studied. A total of 31 site alternatives were examine in a consensus process conducted by the Orange County Airport Site
B : :EcM%;y Icy Coalition which was selected by the Orange County Board of Super-
Gus of Onnge County visors for the new-site work. SCAG participated in part of the InrinFr~d~Ma~orPmr*rn Y 'Ai trndr technical work, but the Airport Site Coalition was the lead group.
C iofhvrmdeCavuy This work was conducted in 1988-89.
Four finalist sites emerged from the 18-month process conducted by the Airport Site Coalition. These included Cristianitos Canyon and aou of vuuvn county
SI Ruk Protrero Loo Pinos, both in Southern Orange County, Southern Camp
Qty d Lal Angclu Pendleton and March Air Force Base, The Orange County Board of Supervisors subsequently rejected all four sites as unfeasible to
cb Clkmrbr? implement, SCAG's technical and policy aviation comnittees reviewed the four sites and rejected Cristianitos and Protrero as technically n ~UWII, CO~ML~*~
C~~ecSmi~,couu,~~r marginal sites which could not be implemented. March Air Force Base
Pf I CY COMMITTEE CHAIRS and Camp Pendleton were also eliminated on the grounds that they would not serve significant air passenger demand and that they were
m,r,Chcur.I'nnrponrwn not available for civilian use. Staff were directed to conduct
~nd Canmunxauns contingency studies of remaining airbuses in the region, including
G Di mom. nRin~~MoyorProT*rn Chr. Energy March, in case they are closed in the future by the department of
ana rnvuonmcnt Defense. Staff were also directed to periodically update air
SEI,;; Cirrctt, VrcrMayor passenger forecasts for southern Camp Pendleton, but to conduct no
other work.
*T-LAIGEDELECAT= At present, there are no new sites for a comnercial airport which ar
J,~ WriphI.Couw8frrunbrr under active consideratjon by SCAG. SCAG's current emphasis is on more efficient utilltation of existing comnercial airports and on contingency studies for active military airbases.
November 25, 1991
R , Quo Of SM B~mudvro
Derac Dam, Supenlsor
ti rlett Wider, Supemuor
Melbi Dualrp,Suprrvuor
JI dikdr, Suprnwr
Roaert Bartlctt, Muyor Monrona
JI Nicbuqw,Muyor MorcnoVIUcy
Jf Melton, Mayor
Tom Bradley, Moyor K < Ridlc)-Thomu,
Qiy of Long Buch
Ha.' Croyts, Mayor Pro Tern
h t, Chair, Connnuruty. EL an~c.~ndHvmur 3r lcpmcnr
LA mau
Kc xrt Ccncr), Councakmmber ugunr Buch
UI
?A ken
4LTERXATES
s' id Count) o Sam Sharp, Svprmuor 0 kx Angdo Ccunty o Ed Eddmm, SvprMor md Kcen& Hahn, Sw-r 0 Onnge County o Gddl Vuqurz, Sup.-
,IC ounij o Yrirlcir Lirron, S~prrnzor 0 Sin Bmrrdvlo Count) o Larry Walktr,Svprnnmr 0 Vmm Cauny o Vklr Horud, Syprmr 0 Oucr dkrrpenrl Carn >a ;LL, Jr., Mayor, Wuvnorknd 0 Ciwr of Loo Angclo County o Abbe Lmd, CowJrmmbrr, Wat Hdlywood 0 Qua of LC Caunty o Ruthdm PIUInInW couch 3on each crucS of )LVC~CIC county o (vaunt) CIUU ofsm ~anudvw County o Elmr hyno,MoprPm fur Lanr kndr 0 CIUU dV- County o (Vacmt) a
h-~gelcr o Kirhrrd AlilorrS Couu~lmcmbrr o Rita Wdlcn, Coumihumbrr o Mickrcf WOO, Cov~~krmbrr 0 kt Each hd pomua~ o Jdlrey we-, Vice MWr 4 ha *
rrd Ktllj, Mayor Pro Tern
Srlnur. Muyor Pro Tern. Monekllo o Frtd Alular, Mayor. chvro o Rob& Irwir,MuyorP?ofun Tbaurud Oaks
49 -I
e m
Mr. Ken Sulter SANDAG
November 25, 1991 Page Two
We hope that this status report responds to SANDAG’s inquiry. detailed information is deslred, please feel free to contact me at If more
SCAG, (213) 236-1910.
Si ncerely , -. xm %p.wF,L /*c
TIM MERWIN Aviation Program Manager
TM/nc
cc: Mike Zdon
mw.i.a m3 c.u~o*~ 8 -O-”.,IIId
818 W. Seventh Stroe;,lZth Floor Lor Angela, CA 9001’1-3435 0 (283) 23&1600 e FAX (213) 236-1825
50
COUNTY I
COUNTY I
GRANVILLE M BOWMAN Matmtg of %an piep TRANSPORTATlt
COUNTY $
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD C (619) 694-2212
COUNTY ROAD
(LOCATION CODE 7501 LIQUID
5555 OVERLAND AVE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123 1295 SOLID
June 14, 1990
Ms. Aletha Rautenkranz, City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
We appreciate your consent to assist the public by providing in your reference department the enclosed document which was
prepared for the County of San Diego by Peat Marwick Main &
Co., Airport Consulting Services, San Francisco, California.
The document is titled:
Draft Report: Volume 2
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program
McClellan-Palomar Airport
May 1990
We are also sending several copies of the meeting notice
which may be distributed to the public if you wish.
If you have available space on your bulletin board, please post a copy of the meeting notice.
Please hold this material until September 30, 1990. After
that date you are at liberty to dispose of it as you wish.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 431-1328.
Sincerely, ------- L&?ig?i J. RANSOM, MANAGER cp cClellan-Palomar Airport
AJR: bw
Enclosures
I Peat M a rw i c k
Airport Consulting Services I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
1
Draft Report: Volume 2
FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program II McClellan-Palornar Airport
Prepared for
County of San Diego San Diego, California I May 1990
THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH A PLANNINGGRANTFROM THEFEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ASPROVIDED
UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORTAND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982.
AS AMENDED THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE FAA ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT BY THE FAA DOES
NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED THEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY AC
CEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE PUBLIC LAWS
Peat Marwick Main Et Co., Airport Consulting Services Post Office Box 8007 San Francisco International Airport San Francisco California 94128-8007 L
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
B
a
E
I
1
I
I.
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1
1
3
1 INTRODUCTION.................................
Background ...................................
Approach to Planning and Overall Objectives.. Report Organization 10 ..........................
11
15
15 23
24
35
2 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGN..................
Recommended Noise Abatement Measures......... Operational Measures.......................
Ground Operations Measures................. Management Measures........................ 8 Noise Mitigation Measures....................
3 PROGRAM COSTS, SOURCES OF FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE, AND GENERAL CONDITIONS...................................
Program Costs................................ Sources of Funding Implementation Schedule...............,...... b General Conditions ...........................
38
38
38
39
39
...........................
40
43
4 PUBLIC AND AIRPORT USER CONSULTATION.........
Formal Public Hearing. .......................
APPENDIX
A Noise Abatement and Noise Mitigation Options
B Public Coordination Material [To Come]
C Public Comment [To Come]
DRAFT (6/f
1
f a
1
I
1
II
t
st
t
t
I
I
1
8
I
E
TABLES
Page
1 Existing and Forecast Average Day 8
Aircraft Mix..................................
2 Estimated Effects of Noise Exposure on 9
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses....................
14 3 Noise Complaints.............................
4 Recommended Noise Abatement and Noise
Mitigation Measures, the Entity Responsible for Implementation, and the Approximate
Start Dates.................................. 16
5 Estimated Effects of Noise Exposure on
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses 29
1995 Revised Noise Exposure..................
d EXHI B ITS
2
4
5
D Preliminary Noise Exposure Map: 1995 6
with Planned Land Use........................
13 E Noise Complaint Locations....................
27 F Revised Noise Exposure Map: 1995............
G Revised Noise Exposure Map: 1995 28
with Planned Land Use........................
3c H 1995 CNEL Grid Value Comparison ..............
I Noise Exposure Map: Annual Service Volume 32
with Planned Land Use........................
A Airport Location.............................
B Noise Exposure Map: 1989.................... P C Preliminary Noise Exposure Map: 1995........
DRAFT (6/t
1
I
a
1
li
i
i
Y
I
I
1
5
t
1
1
I
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within the corporate
limits of the City of Carlsbad, approximately four miles
southeast of downtown, in San Diego County, California. The
Airport, owned and operated by the County, serves as a major
general aviation facility for northern San Diego County.
As shown on Exhibit A, there is one runway on a site of about
466 acres; 255 acres of the site are used for Airport facil-
ities. The remaining acreage is southeast and northeast of t
Airport and is noncontiguous to the portion used for Airport
facilities. The area southeast of the Airport, on the south
side of Palomar Airport Road, is occupied by a resort hotel a
an animal shelter. The area northeast of the Airport, to the
east of El Camino Real, is vacant.
I
I
The Airport site was acquired in 1958 as a replacement for
Del Mar Airport.
a 3,700-foot-long by 100-foot-wide runway which was later
expanded to 4,700 feet by 150 feet in 1961, In 1973 an Airpc
Traffic Control Tower was placed in operation and is operated
from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily.
McClellan-Palornar Airport opened in 1959 wi I
DRAFT (6/t
PACIFIC OCc*Iv
1
L
-
-
- .
-
1
1
I
1
3
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
II
!
I
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the
Airport as a general utility facility--an airport mainly serv-
ing aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of
12,500 pounds or less. However, some aircraft larger than
12,500 pounds but less than 60,000 pounds do operate at the
Airport. McClellan-Palomar Airport also serves light propel-
ler-driven, turboprop, and business jet general aviation air-
craft. Approximately 447 aircraft were based at the Airport a
the end of 1989.
E
APPROACH TO PLANNING AND OVERALL OBJECTIVES
In September 1989, the County of San Diego retained KPMG Peat
Marwick, airport consultants of San Francisco, California, to
assist in preparing a Noise Compatibility Program under Federa
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150. Brown-Buntin Associates,
Inc., acoustical consultants of Visalia, California, conducted
a special noise monitoring program and produced noise exposure
maps for the aircraft noise analysis.
I
1 An FAR Part 150 project consists of two parts: airport noise
exposure maps and a noise compatibility program. The noise
exposure maps, shown on Exhibits B, C, and D, depict the exist
ing and forecast noise exposure areas and levels around the
Airport. For McClellan-Palomar Airport, existing noise expo-
sure data are for 1989, the latest full calendar year for whic
DRAFT (6/6/
I**** **** **+*
***
PACIFIC OCERN
.**** **** *+*
PAcIPIc OC~AH
-
PACIFK OCEdlv
BATIqUITOS LACOON
I
1
I
I
I
1
u
I
R
I
1
I
I
I
II
aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) information is
available.
Forecast noise exposure maps for McClellan-Palomar Airport art
for the year 1995, the fifth calendar year after submission oj
the map to the FAA, as required in FAR Part 150. The
preliminary 1995 noise exposure maps shown on Exhibits C and I
use the operations levels and aircraft mix from the 1995
forecast (as shown in Table 1) but assume that the flight
patterns remain the same as in 1989.
1L
1
After the completion of the noise exposure maps, the effects (
the noise on existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses
{such as residences and schools) were identified (as shown in
Table 2). This information was then used in the development (
the Noise Compatibility Program. The Program includes ways tc
(1) lessen the extent and effects of aircraft noise on people
living and working in the Airport environs, (2) ensure that
existing compatible land uses will remain compatible in the
future, and (3) develop an ongoing process to implement the
program recommendations.
I
I
DRAFT (6/6,
I
II
I
I
1
cn
~ u a* m ea ma, U Cm3
*urd (dm E40 LC us oa, wLIu *
cm .4w(Iu
a, ha a scuu u(d a,
eoom
-d 0 -4 m m
X
z
E
H
3 z H
OdP 4 ulLnoLn-3dw Lo 00 0- E
L) o~nmrl~nmm -0 0 dm -3mmN cn 00 E E (d **. "'I: Ln md IC
q -4 dddddd+ d 4 9 L
E> oar :I N m
a *: *::::I j u3 N ma -ffl t 1 4
N ZT S *dP C
.r rlPOmom0 m *m
hd
m. 4- ;
a (I I C
-w tc n b a* c Cv) b 3 m .* oa, I
OLI I
42
wdP mwoQmdu3 -3 ww
0-3OdPrurl w g.2 . . . . . . .I ; ma +
de -3
w
obp a4
ul*
om Ln
cnm ~oorlcn*m CY
cnomolTcom -m O0 6
Ln
rid I 3-
0 osw
mu a, u *oa i2 .: .rl (I me
w<g ;$y Zum Pa,aJE
a, $L r:-4 w
Rfrl 330 a,aJaJL(
*s aJ uuh c(d3LI
id
1 E +a 0 a,>> urb
E;: ,"ft:9 aa,crl 1
8
I
rl 412
nGCo d(dm 'osw
pri
(d
:Bw2 ul
(d OE C a' -4
gG
ps
k2
UaJ3 c um a,auaJ a,r: 5 LI auu 04
3 -4 5
a,um r: cr: u
m>
-0-d G a, m m0-c
a:
H E? 111 H X w y::
Wbp - 2a c
JJO c
b* oc -0 urn r
rl *QOVdrlu3 N wo
0 E : cOj4+$ 00 a-
Lnq ?NONOLnO 0
-3 rnd UN
CJ (dd a, uw mo Ln# rum uc, : m. -cG
-0 Dm .?I 4 . aa, 33 .
Pd@ ww ulmomou3o m ow ww m. 00 ; OmOOmmd -m aa, dm W YY d a(d c,u
mm
I
..... m.4 00000-3dIu; 4 dZ
*-*./G: -q 4 ??:":?I? -rl ..
xa, w3 w I
mm ! E2
a rr Ln om d ;E.? 55 .5 .5
Nde do
0. Dm r.LnmNmmm m 4 NLnrrri P
N .a(d a OP xx om5 ad - uoua, 0.4 c u a wucuo 0 (dQ CLU aao a aa w aJECa, a, m3aJu oou a, m aa, u u aar c CI) as c, 0 0 a,+ J2J2cmu u (d u u.4 c a, 0 u u Liz UC33Darc, u aJrauueIad a,a, -n w a,@O (d d QU oohuldu u (d ELI
-A an 31: c m.4 o 3 3a, a, LILi(dm-dC4 E? c 2P.I c 5 7 a,*d 34 a, BEZdE111Z 4
I
I
4
aa, c 5 a cn d
E?(dalEc 1 b-l am 0 EE oou
c,i) sr: . UU . E .rl .?I &E* 33 * .a (da aa
Qla IIIIII 00
Ul c 35 .rlU BE cs ha, Is1
(d > .rl
bP-2 22
QP uu
.. nwz 5s
cn em -4 c, d 4 -d cbd c -c, a, 3 uo3 a,B5
I
d c a, W a, qTr L, 3 5 (d a
v)
oommco 4 r(
ooo-r-? wI - OOONN dl 4
g
P E 5
u
m c, *4 c 3
I
flz
8
1
0
w !x c 4
gmc, a, gm 2
WDF a&
N a4
cnp
x00 m
w CI e-(
3 a, a,
&rl X LC a, a ea, a, V m
4 a, 0 c 00 c c,
a, c P 0
u 5 V a,
u a, 5 a 0 a, Y 5
oommo m m a, a, rlri 0) .d I c,
ooomm ooomm dm -4 a, PE
r: s
0 0 0 010 ml m ml m
.rl ooomm ooomm dl dl d NI CY NCV m c, ml m
ql in
.rl
00000
I@ cw 27
21 mw -4
000NN I OOONN 1 a,
.4
a, U u) c
a, m 3
5 c
o md
m m 5 3
m '73 c a a, c u a 4 + md
0 momw mm momw m c PPw
-d+I I Id
.rl u @ -4 Xdddd
+
momu)
+ ma 0
omomow ~umocnow hcmomoEil mPPwQz umPPwwz ucPP~~%
aJwwwwrl -dawwwwd *-(awwww--I zzzza E zzzza E zzzza I:uuuuc, .-Icuwwoc, -rlcuuuu+J
om
dc PPU) 45 PPw aJ+r I Id
u
.A+ I I Id aJ
a, roc -4 a
w ala Crlddcld cxdddd
0 E 0 do Ec a, -,+ u3 PC
mc, 0 rlu E a, *rl u3 PC
z""
co 4
d m3
a
I
8
a,a, a
z .rl z .A m5 + 0 c -7
hm +)a, r .A m n c: m -r 3aJ 4 EU s
ox T u a, -p C II ( P d w
ED^ a
5 (
4
I
P
I
I
8
1
@
1;
li
I
I
I
1
I
1
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is divided into four chapters. General descrip-
tions of the Airport, the preliminary noise exposure maps, and
the Noise Compatibility Program are provided in Chapter 1. Tl-
recommended noise abatement and noise mitigation measures are
described in Chapter 2.
li
Implementation, preliminary cost estimates, and financing are
discussed in Chapter 3. Public and Airport user consultation
and coordination are presented in Chapter 4. Appendix A pro-
vides background information on the analyses leading to the
recommendations and details on the recommended measures.
Appendix B contains handouts used in the public information
sessions, attendance lists, and public comments.
R
This Volume 2 of the report does not provide a discussion of
the noise analysis and methodology. The reader is encouraged
to review Volume 1 for additional information and background,
and for a greater understanding of the previous analyses, as
well as prevailing conditions, issues, and opportunities. 1
DRAFT (6/6/1
I
1
H
I
I
I
8
I
I
1
8
8
8
I
1
I
I
Chapter 2
NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
I After the noise exposure maps are complete and the effects of
noise on existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses are
identified, the Noise Compatibility Program can be developed.
The Program includes recommendations to lessen the extent and
effects of aircraft noise on the land and residents of the
Airport environs, and it describes ways to develop an ongoing
process to implement the recommendations.
i
The two primary ways to increase compatibility between an air-
port and its environs are to implement noise abatement and
noise mitigation measures. Noise abatement measures generall:
refer to actions that can reduce the extent of aircraft noise
exposure or otherwise reduce the amount of existing and planni
noise-sensitive land uses and population exposed to high leve
of aircraft noise. This reduction is usually achieved throug
changes in aircraft operational procedures, types of aircraft
using an airport, or airfield layout.
Although noise abatement measures can reduce noise-sensitive
land uses and the number of people exposed to high levels of
aircraft noise, in many urban situations it is likely that hi
levels of aircraft noise would still occur over off-airport
areas. Therefore, noise mitigation measures applied in an
DRAFT (6/6
I
I
II
I
I
I
t
airport environs can help remedy noise problems for existing
residents of the environs and minimize the development of
future noise-sensitive land uses.
I FAR Part 150 requires that specific noise abatement and noise
mitigation alternative measures be reviewed for the airport in
question.
in Appendix A, along with an evaluation of the desirability of
implementing such measures at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
These and other alternative measures are described e
Because the Airport is a general aviation airport, the noise
exposure is considerably less than would occur at an air
carrier airport accommodating larger and noisier aircraft. I
8 On the basis of the noise exposure maps, no existing and very
few planned noise-sensitive land uses are expected to be withi
areas exposed to a Community Noise Equivalent Level* (CNEL)
of 65 or higher by 1995.
all of the noise complainants reside in areas currently expose
to aircraft noise levels of less than CNEL 65--the FAA-definec
area of "significant" noise exposure--and also in areas exposc
to levels of less than CNEL 60.
I
8
I
I u
I
1.
I
As shown on Exhibit E and Table 3,
*For additional assumptions and limitations of CNEL values, see text of the Volume 1 report.
DRAFT (6/6,
Oceansid/teisum Wag Ocean Hills
2940
PAClFK (ICI'IN
-- -- __ -
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3
NOISE COMPLAINTS
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Complaint Type of complaint (January 1985 through December 19891
locat ion Jet Helicopter Propeller General Total
A1 t amir a 247 21 152 183 603
Ter ramar 272 20 223 82 597
San Marcos 102 96 107 85 390
Car 1 sbad 96 41 111 111 359
La Costa 35 37 58 a9 219
Solamar 153 0 4 40 197
Oceanside 15 7 24 17 63
Vista 20 7 9 23 59
Palomar West 10 5 7 25 47
Spinnaker Hills 5 24 5 11 45
Enc i n i t as 1 16 12 8 37
Escondido 7 4 10 13 34
Shadow Ridge 7 3 3 11 24
Rancho Carlsbad 2 0 9 7 ia
Seaport e 0 16 0 .2 18
Seagate Village 8 2 2 5 17
Other 4 13 29 20 66
Unknown 53 14 10 64 141 1 Total 1 I 037 326 775 796 2,934
-
Number of complaints
(October 1988 through September 1989)a
Time of day Weekday Weekend Unknown Total
91 5 a.m. - 9:59 a.m. 75 16
10 a.m. - 4:59 p.m. 77 39 1 117
5 p.m. - 9:59 p.m. 49 10 5 64
31 75 I Total 244 99 38 381 e
--
10 p.m. - 4:59 a.m. 22 11 1 34
Unknown 2 - - 23
a. Data on time of day only analyzed for the period indicated.
Source: San Diego County, October 1989. I
I
I 0 DRAFT (6/6
1
I
1
8
I
I
l
I
1:
8
8
1
I
I
I
I
However, there is a more direct relationship between the
location of the complainants and some of the flight tracks.
Thus, it can be inferred that some residents are being annoyed
more by individual aircraft noise events than by overall air-
craft noise exposure. The number of noise complaints and
complainants clearly shows that a noise problem does exist in
the vicinity of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
I
In the Noise Compatibility Program, alternative noise abatemer
and noise mitigation measures were reviewed to determine if
improvements can be made to reduce noise annoyance as well as
the overall noise impact. The recommended noise abatement an(
noise mitigation measures, the entity responsible for implemei
tation, and the start date for the measure are listed in Tablc
and are discussed in more detail below and in Appendix A.
1
I
RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
This section describes the noise abatement measures recommend
for McClellan-Palomar Airport. They are as follows:
Operational Measures
1. Raise the traffic pattern altitudes from 800 feet D
to 1,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) for helicopters,
from 1,200 feet MSL to 1,500 feet MSL for small
DRAFT (6/1
Table 4
RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES,
THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE
APPROXIMATE START DATES
McClellan-Palornar Airport
1
I
I
1
8
II
1
I
il
1
II
8
l
I
n
1
I
8
I
Entity with Approximate
Measure implementation responsibility start date
NOISE ABATEMENT
Operations Measures
1. Raise the traffic pattern San Diego County/ 1991
altitude Fede ra 1 Aviation Administration
2. Increase ILS~ and VASIb angle San Diego County/ 1991
from 3.2 to 3.76 degrees Federal Aviation Administration
3. Modify Oceanside VORc approach San Diego County/ 1991
to maintain higher altitude Federal Aviation Administration
over Carlsbad
4. Require visual departures pro- San Diego County/ 1991d
ceeding to the coast from Federal Aviation Administration
Runway 24 to turn to a 250-degree
heading and fly through the gap
between Solamar and Terramar
5. Develop jet standard instrument San Diego County/ 1991d
departure (SID) for Runway 24 Federal Aviation Administration
operations to turn to a
250-degree heading and perform a
thrust cutback procedure at ,
Interstate 5
6. Conduct a test in which Runway 24 San Diego County/ 1991
arrivals would maintain gear and Federal Aviation Administration/
flap settings from the outer Aircraft operators
marker until past Palomar West
7. Require jet arrivals to San Diego County/ 1991d
Runway 24 to use the ILS Federal Avi a ti on Administration
8. Specify Runway 24 as the San Diego County/ 1991
9. Increase the helicopter route San Diego County/ 1991
preferential runway Federal Aviation Administration
altitude to 1000 feet MSL~ Federa 1 Aviation Administration/
Aircraft operators
Ground Operations Measures
10. Locate engine maintenance runup San Diego County 1991d
11. Hold aircraft at parking position Federal Aviation Administration 1991d
area to west side of the Airport
when departure delays are high
Management Measures
12. Limit aircraft using the Airport San Dieqo County 1991d
13. Require that there be no jet San Diego County/ 1991d
to those operating at a maximum
weight of 60,000 pounds
training Aircraft operators
DRAFT (F/I
Table 4 (page 2 of 2)
RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATEMENT AND NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES,
THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE
APPROXIMATE START DATES
Mcclellan-Palomar Airport
I
8
8
8
1
I
1
8
I
I
1
1
1
8
I
I
I
1
Entity with Approximate
Measure implementation responsibility start date
14. Implement a voluntary Stage 2 San Dieqo County/ 1991
Aircraft operators jet departure curfew between
10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
15. Develop permanent noise San Dieqo County 1991
16. Designate a noise abatement San Diego County I991
17. Continue to have the Palomar San Dieqo County 1991
B mo_nitoring system
officer
Airport Advisory Committee act
as a noise abatement committee
18. Produce maps identifying the San Dieqo County 1991
noise-sensitive areas around
Airport
NOISE MITIGATION
1. Change the Airport Influence San Diego County/ 1991
Area to reflect the new forecast San Dieqo Association of
noise exposure maps Governments (Airport Land Use
Commission)
2. Amend the noise elements of the City of Carlsbad/ 1991
City and County general plans to San Dieqo County
reflect the new noise exposure
maps
3. Require all land uses inside the City of Carlsbad 1991
CNEL 65 he zoned as compatible
land use
4. Require the granting of aviqation City of Carlsbad 1991
easements for all new noise-
sensitive land uses inside the
CNEZ 65
City of Carlsbad 1991 5. Ensure that all properties
inside the CNEL 65 include the
aircraft noise levels in the
fair disclosure statement
6. Encourage that the agricultural City of Carlsbad/ 1991
area west of the Airport remain Property owner
an agricultural preserve
a. Instrument landing system.
b. Visual approach slope indicator.
C. Very high-frequency omnidirectional radio range.
d. Recommended actions that have been implemented or are being implemented (although
e. Mean sed level.
Source: KPMG Peat Marwick, May 1990.
text may indicate actions needed beyond those already taken).
DRAFT (6/1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
aircraft, and from 1,500 feet MSL to 2,000 feet MSL
for large aircraft.
aircraft at higher altitudes over the Rancho Carlsbac:
Mobile Home Park and enable arriving aircraft from
the northwest to remain at higher altitudes over the
This procedure would keep
I
main City of Carlsbad area, which has had 12% noise
complaints over the last five years.
2. Increase the instrument landing system (ILS) angle
and the visual approach slope indicator
to 3.76 degrees, providing additional altitude to
aircraft overflying neighborhoods to the east of the
Airport, including the community of San Marcos and
the Palomar West Mobile Home Park.
(VASI) angle
The projected noise exposure of these communities
would be reduced by 1 to 2 decibels (dB) in the CNE
over these areas. For single-event operations, thi
procedure results in a reduction of 3 dB in the Sou
Exposure Level (SEL) values for jet aircraft and 2
for prop aircraft.
1 3. Modify the Oceanside (OCN) very high frequency omn.
directional radio range (VOR) approach for aircraf.
so that they maintain a minimum altitude of 3,000
DRAFT (6,’
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
1)
I
I
I
I
I
I
MSL at the OCN VOR, 2,000 feet MSL four miles past th
VOR on a heading of 120 degrees, and 1,400 feet MSL
seven miles past the VOR. The procedure is to keep
aircraft at altitudes over 1,000 feet above ground
level (AGL) over the main Cities of Oceanside and
Carlsbad residential communities.
is restricted to propellor driven aircraft only.
is unauthorized for jet use.
I
This VOR approach
It
I 4. Require Runway 24 visual departures proceeding north
or south along the coast to make a right turn as
soon as feasible to a heading of 250 degrees, fly
over the vacant area between the communities of
Terramar and Solamar, and maintain heading until one
mile past the shoreline before turning north or
south.
Airport Road can be used as a visual marker for
keeping on course.
this intersection.
The intersection of Interstate 5 and pa lo ma^
Pilots should keep just right oj
This procedure would not apply to aircraft making
immediate turns proceeding east or to aircraft I remaining in the pattern.
DRAFT (6/t
II
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
5. Prepare a standard instrument departure (SID) with
the FAA concerning instrument flight rules (IFR) jet
departures from Runway 24 requiring that aircraft
maintain a heading of 250° and climb to a minimum
altitude of 2,000 feet MSL before crossing
Interstate 5 or OCN 131O radial. Reduce power at
Interstate 5 as acceptable for safe flight, and
maintain the initial heading and altitude until at
least three miles offshore. Some aircraft are
performing this procedure now, but many are not.
I
Of the 2,934 noise complaints over the last five
years, 48% were from the neighborhoods overflown
by departing aircraft from Runway 24: Altamira,
Terramar, Solamar, and Seagate Village. This new
procedure in conjunction with the Runway 24 visual
departure procedure (noise abatement measure 4)
should eliminate most of the direct overflights of
these neighborhoods. These procedures should signj
ficantly reduce the projected noise exposure by 3 t
4 CNEL at the Altamira, Solamar, and Seagate Villa(
neighborhoods and by about 1 CNEL at Terramar.
I
. DRAFT (6,
E
1
5;:
I
I
c
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
B
A capacity analysis was also performed to determine
the impact of aircraft departing from Runway 24 and
proceeding out over the coast on the 250-degree
heading.
a minimal impact on Airport capacity and that the
maximum number of departures that could occur per
hour would be reduced from 98 to 96.
It was found that the procedure would have 1
6. Conduct a test in which arriving aircraft to Runway
maintain gear and flap settings between the Palomar
Airport outer marker and the west edge of the
Palomar West Mobile Home Park.
I
At public information sessions and Palomar Airport
Advisory Committee meetings, it was mentioned that
aircraft that overflew the corcmunity of San Marcos
and the Palomar West Mobile Home Park in a configu-
ration with gear and flaps either up or down were
noticeably quieter than those aircraft lowering the
gear and flaps and applying power to stabilize the
aircraft. It is difficult to quantify the benefit
of this procedure through modeling techniques.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Airport test
the procedure using noise monitoring equipment to
I
I
I quantify the benefit.
DRAFT (6/(
I*
f
E
8
I
I
1.
I
1
!
1
t
1
E
1
1
7. Require jet aircraft arrivals to Runway 24 to use
the ILS.
(major contributors of noise in the area east of the
Airport) over less populated areas, except for the
This procedure would keep jet aircraft
I Palomar West Mobile Home Park and Some areas of
San Marcos.
SO that fewer neighborhoods would be exposed to
noise.
It would also concentrate the aircraft
This procedure is currently in use at the Airport as
part of the voluntary noise control plan.
Specify Runway 24 as the preferential runway at the
Airport when wind conditions permit.
of the operations at the Airport use Runway 24 due
to winds and operational procedures.
during calm wind conditions, some aircraft do use
Runway 6.
neighborhoods that do not normally experience low-
8.
Currently, 98? 1
However,
The departures from Runway 6 overfly
1 altitude departures. These operations can be
significantly noisier than the arrival operations
these neighborhoods usually experience.
DRAFT (6/6
1
I
I
t
P
P
1
1
1
I
1E
t
1
1
I
I
9. Increase the helicopter route altitude from 800 feet
MSL to 1,000 feet MSL. Helicopter operations gener-
ate 11% of the noise complaints at the Airport.
Some of the major causes of these complaints have
been reduced or alleviated, but there are still a
large number of complaints from communities under
the helicopter routes. Providing an additional
200 feet of altitude over these areas would provide
some relief from helicopter noise.
Ground Operations Measures
10. Locate the aircraft engine maintenance runup area 01
the west side of the Airport with aircraft facing
east. No maintenance runups should be conducted
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 1
The majority of the noise complaints concerning
engine runups were from the La Costa neighborhood
area, southeast of the Airport. The relocation of
the maintenance runup area and the orientation of t
aircraft would keep the noise generated by engine
runups in the Airport property or in industrial pal
land uses. If the noise to the industrial park
becomes excessive, a noise berm may be considered (
the southwest corner of the Airport, near the runu]
area.
I
I
DRAFT (6,’
i
t
I
1
I
I
1
I
I s.
0
I s
1
I
I
11. When demand increases and more than four departing
aircraft are waiting in queues on the taxiway,
additional departing aircraft should hold at their
tiedown or hangar location with engines off. This
measure would reduce taxiing noise. d
Management Measures
12. Limit the use of the Airport to aircraft operating a
a maximum weight of 60,000 pounds. This is a curren
restriction due to the limitation in size of the
runway.
1
13. Require that there be no jet training operations.
This is a current procedure that reduces the number
of jet aircraft operations, a major contributor of
noise at the Airport.
1
14. Prepare a letter of agreement between the County an<
Stage 2 jet aircraft operators at the Airport to
restrict Stage 2 jet departures between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m.
There are a significant number of noise complaints
relative to the number of operations at the Airport
during the late night and early morning hours. It
DRAFT (6/6
I
f
I
I
I
4
1
E
I
1
1
IL
1
8
E
5
was determined that a significant number of these
complaints were due to infrequent noisy jet
departures from Runway 24.
significant concern about such operations at the
public information sessions.
identified as being Stage 2 jets.
Residents also expressed
I The aircraft were
As mentioned above, these operations are infrequent,
but they do generate a significant number of noise 1 complaints.
15. Acquire and install a permanent noise monitoring
system to validate the effectiveness of the noise
abatement procedures and to quantify noise problems
in surrounding neighborhoods in the future.
16. Designate a noise abatement officer. If the existi
the program, staff does not have time to administer
consider hiring a noise abatement officer.
17. Continue to have the Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee act as a forum for discussion of noise 1 abatement actions.
DRAFT (6/(
I
t
E
1
1
6
!
1
1
li
1
I
!
1
1
1
3
18. Produce maps identifying noise-sensitive areas arounc
the Airport and distribute them to pilots to help
them avoid these areas when possible.
I The revised noise exposure maps for 1995 with the above noise
abatement measures implemented are shown on Exhibits F and G
for the existing and planned land uses respectively.
estimated number of noise-sensitive land uses exposed to level
of CNEL 60+ are shown in Table 5.
The
The preliminary noise exposure map for 1995 (Exhibit C) shows
that portions of the Solamar, Seagate Village, and Sudan
Interior Mission neighborhoods are exposed to noise levels
greater than CNEL 60. The revised noise exposure map for 199:
(Exhibit F) shows that the only existing noise-sensitive land
uses exposed to noise levels greater than CNEL 60 are 18 dwel.
ling units from the Sudan Interior Mission.
the Volume 1 report, this community has a conditional use
permit related to Airport noise.
1
As mentioned in
A CNEL grid value map, shown on Exhibit H, was also developed
to compare CNEL values for the 1995 forecast level of opera-
tions with and without the implementation of the new noise
abatement measures.
(1,000 feet by 1,000 feet) and the CNEL values shown are the
noise exposure levels at the center of the grid cell.
Each grid cell is approximately 23 acres
DRAFT (6/(
+***,e ..I..*
PACrFfC mRAhT
BATiQUXlUS 1A-N
c -
PACIFIC ocfm
BATIOUITOS LAGOON
s
I
I
t
R
4
I
1
i
I
I
I
JI a
Although not required in an FAR Part 150 Study, a noise exposui
map was developed using the annual service volume or theoretic;
capacity of the Airport, 334,000 annual operations.
I This map, shown as Exhibit I, can be used for long-range
planning in the Airport environs.
Implementation of these recommended noise abatement measures
would require actions by the County, the FAA, and aircraft
operators.
reflecting the recommended measures.
I The County should develop Rules and Regulations
In finalizing the Rules and Regulations, discussions should bc
held with the FAA and Airport users to assure that safety wou
not be compromised. The Rules and Regulations should be deve
oped as soon as possible, and they should make it clear that
federal air regulations supersede the noise abatement Rules a
II
I Regulations.
The County should then aggressively disseminate and enforce t
Rules and Regulations, and, as the program continues, considc
whether the Rules and Regulations should be formalized in an
ordinance, with fines for nonconformance. I
DRAFT (6)
PACIFIC OCEAN
BATlWlTOS LAGOON
\
-
1
I
I
I
II
8
1
8
I
1
1
1
I
I
An initial set of meetings should be held with fixed base
operators, flight schools, and pilots to announce the noise
abatement program. Follow-up meetings should be held as neces
sary to further disseminate information on the Rules and
Regulations and other aspects of the overall program. Noise
abatement should be made a specific subject in flight school
curricula, based on the County's program.
I.
The County should coordinate actions suggested below that
should be taken jointly by the County and the FAA. II
The County should publish a high-quality pamphlet and a poste
on noise abatement and distribute both to fixed base operator
and flight training schools. The pamphlet should also be dis
tributed to pilots and aircraft owners.
identify designated noise-sensitive neighborhoods and specif)
noise abatement procedures and other guidelines to reduce noi
annoyance. They would contain information regarding ordinanc
and other formal documents concerning noise abatement. They
would also contain maps, aerial photos, and verbal descriptic
of noise abatement procedures. These documents would increa
the awareness of pilots of the importance of following
I The documents would
I
I designated noise abatement procedures.
DRAFT (6,
1 u
8
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I *
1
IC
8
The County should arrange for noise abatement information to bi
published in national publications, including Jeppesen Airport
Approach charts, the California Guide to Airports, the Airman’
Information Manual, AOPA’s Airports USA, and the National
Business Aircraft Association’s noise-sensitive airports list.
Precedents have been established for publishing noise abatemen
procedures in the publications listed. Using such information
is the only way a transient user of the Airport can become
informed of the need to avoid noise-sensitive areas.
The County should also install signs describing noise abateme1
procedures at the departure thresholds of Runways 6 and 24, ar
signs should be installed on roads leading into the Airport.
All pilots should be reminded of the need to avoid overflying I noise-sensitive neighborhoods.
To the extent that controller workload permits, the FAA Toc,?r
should broadcast advisory information to both arriving and
departing aircraft on noise abatement procedures.
messages would be of two types: procedures described in tern
of specific turning movements and procedures described in tei
of roads or other physical features.
Advisory 1
DRAFT (6/
I
1
1
I
8
1
I
1 s
I
t
8
I[
1
8
I
I
Such broadcasting of noise abatement messages may not be
possible when traffic is heavy and it is at these times that
noise annoyance may be greatest. At other times, such infor-
mation would be very valuable in reducing overflights of noise
sensitive neighborhoods.
so as not to adversely affect controller workload.
pilots who are not familiar with the area and with the
published procedures could not be expected to conform as
predictably as others.
The messages would have to be brief
Transient
NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
Several preventive noise mitigation measures are recommended
for the environs of McClellan-Palomar Airport. Because there
are no noise-sensitive areas in the CNEL 65 noise exposure art
and only a few inside the CNEL 60, no remedial noise rnitigatic
measures are recommended. The recommended preventive measure
are as follows:
I
1. The San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar
Airport should be amended to reflect the ne4 forecz
noise exposure area in the Airport Influence Area.
1
DR4FT (6/
8
1
I
li
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
8
2. The noise elements in the general plans of San Diego
County and the City of Carlsbad should be amended to
reflect the new noise exposure maps.
I 3. All noise-sensitive land uses inside the current or
future CNEL 65 area should be zoned as compatible
use, or adequate noise insulation should be requirec
There is an area currently zoned for residential USE
3,000 feet southwest of the Airport inside the
CNEL 65 noise exposure area. I
4. If new noise-sensitive development is permitted in
areas of CNEL 65 of greater, the granting of an avi-
gation easement to the City of Carlsbad should be
required as a condition of approval. I
5. The City of Carlsbad should ensure that for all
properties in areas of CNEL 65 or greater, the
aircraft noise levels are included in the fair
disclosure statement, as required by the State of
California.
6. The owner of the large agricultural area west of tl
Airport should be encouraged to keep the land in a1
agricultural preserve under the Williamson Act.
DRAFT (6/
a
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
B
8
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
i
According to Section 150.23(e)(9) of FAR Part 150, there shoulc
be provision for revising the program if necessary due to revi-
sions of the noise exposure map.
mitigation measures might require change as a result of revise(
noise contours, the County will provide revised noise exposure
maps to the appropriate City and County agencies.
dictions could then amend any pertinent policies or ordinances
to conform with the most recent CNEL contours and potential
changes in land use.
Because some of the noise
R
The juris-
DRAFT (6/t
I
8
8
I
1
I
1
Chapter 3
PROGRAM COSTS, SOURCES OF FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE, AND GENERAL CONDITIONS
PROGRAM COSTS
The installation of a permanent noise monitoring system is
estimated to cost $350,000, and an additional portable noise
monitoring system is estimated to cost $50,000.
costs for maintenance and for a qualified operator and inter-
preter for the noise monitoring system are estimated to cost
II
Recurring
I $50,000 per year.
A 1,000 foot long, 15 foot high noise berm for the engine
maintenance runup area is estimated to cost about $300,000. I
I With the exception of these items, the costs of implementing
the recommendations are largely of an indirect nature and wou
be paid from the normal operating budgets of the County and t
I
1 FAA.
1.
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCES OF FUNDING
Sources of funding for implementation of the Noise Compatibil
Program would be Airport funds and FAA grants-in-aid for nois
compatibility purposes. The actual ammnt expended in any gi
year would depend on the availability of funds from these SOL
DRAFT (6/t
I
1
8
I
1
8
m
1
8
il
1
I
I
B
I
I
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The measures in this Noise Compatibility Program would be
implemented through 1992.
time or sooner if an increase in aircraft operations at the
Airport or changes in the airfield layout result in an increa
in CNEL value of 1.5 or greater or new residential neighbor-
hoods and other noise-sensitive uses not identified in this
Program are exposed to noise levels in excess of CNEL 65.
The Program would be updated at th
I
1 GENERAL CONDITIONS
The Program has been designed to reduce existing noncompatibi
ity and to prevent, or reduce the probability of, establishin
new noncompatibilities.
I As can be seen from the evaluation of alternatives, actions
that could (1) impose an undue burden on interstate or forei?
commerce, (2) be considered unjustly discriminatory, or
(3) derogate safety or adversely affect airspace efficiency
were not recommended.
The Program meets both local needs and the needs of the
national air transportation system and can be implemented in
manner consistent with the powers and duties of the FAA
Administrator.
DRAFT (6/
1
8
I
I
Chapter 4
PUBLIC AND AIRPORT USER CONSULTATION
I The Noise Compatibility Program for McClellan-Palomar Airport
was prepared with the help of Airport staff, local planning
officials, FAA air traffic control personnel, and local citi-
zens affected by aircraft operations. 8
1 Data were presented monthly, as they were developed, to the
Palomar Airport Advisory Committee for review and comment. Th
established committee was formed to review and advise the
San Diego County Board of Supervisors on matters concerning
McClellan-Palomar Airport. The members were appointed by the
Board of Supervisors and include representatives of the com-
munity, Airport users (fixed base operators and pilots), the
Carlsbad City Council, and San Diego County's Noise Control
Hearing Board. The meetings were also attended by the Airpor
Manager and the Assistant Deputy Director of the County Publi
Works Department. The meetings were open and the public was
encouraged to attend and comment on the proceedings. Approxi
mately 20 to 30 Airport users and members of the general pub1
1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I attended most meetings.
Meetings were held with the Committee on October 19, 1989,
November 16, 1989, January 18, 1990, February 15, 1990, and
May 19, 1990.
DRAFT (6/(
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Throughout these meetings, members of the Committee and the
public were acquainted with the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibilj
Program.
attending. Many topics were discussed, including the study
process, existing and future Airport operations, flight track:
for fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, noise monitoring,
noise exposure maps, noise abatement and mitigation measures,
and enforcement issues.
Comments and questions were elicited from those
I The County also held three public information meetings in whi
presentations were made describing the FAR Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program update.
one and the public was given the opportunity at each meeting
comment and ask questions.
The meetings were open to ever
The first public information session was held November 16, 19
in the Carlsbad City Council Chamber, at 1200 Elm Aventie, be€
approximately 40 residents, Airport users, and reporters. Th
purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the public with the FI
Part 150 Program, to review some of the terms and methodologj
they would be hearing throughout the study, and to elicit quc
tions.
viewgraphs which are included in Appendix B.
I
The consultant gave a presentation using a series of I
DRAFT (6/r
B
I
I
8
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
The second public information session was held February 28,
1990, at the Carlsbad Safety Center, at 2560 Orion Way, beforc
approximately 60 residents, Airport users, and reporters. Thi
purpose of the meeting was to acquaint the public with the
aviation demand forecasts, the noise monitoring program, oper
tions at the Airport, and resulting noise exposure maps and
effects on noise-sensitive land uses. The consultant gave a
presentation using a series of viewgraphs, which are included
in Appendix B, and a computer demonstration of the actual rad
flight tracks for the Airport. Maps showing the average flig
tracks and the noise exposure areas for existing and future
conditions were displayed on the walls.
the meeting was opened to comments and questions.
I
I
After the presentati
The third public information session was held on , 199
(Text to corn:.}
On April 10, 1990, a workshop was held with Airport users
(pilots and fixed bas-. operators), the FAA Air Traffic Contrc
Tower, Terminal Approach Control, the Region, Flight Standarc
City and County planning departments, and the San Diego Assoc
atio7 of Governments. In this meeting, the noise exposure m;
were reviewed using many of the presentation materials and mi
from the second public information meeting, and the technica:
aspects of the noise control plan were discussed. Maps show:
I
DRAFT (6/r
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
radar flight tracks, noise contours, and noise grid maps (a
grid system where each 23-acre box contains several CNEL value
representing noise exposure in the middle of the box for sever
conditions or analyses) overlaid on aerial photographs were
displayed and used in the discussions.
were elicited throughout the meeting.
I Comments and questions
Additional coordination with the FAA Tower and TRACON and loc;
planning agencies (Cities of Carlsbad, Vista, Oceanside and
San Marcos) was performed through individual contacts and
meetings.
I
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
{Text to come}
a
DRAFT (6/6
1
1
I
1
1
8
.I
I
1
6 s
1
1 s
#
1
I
Appendix A
NOISE ABATEMENT AND NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, "Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning," requires airport operators to review
specific alternative ways to reduce aircraft noise exposure a
the effects of noise on noise-sensitive land uses and people
airport environs.
ous options specified in FAR Part 150, as well as additional
options that could possibly be applicable to McClellan-Paloma
I
This appendix provides a review of the var
t Airport.
NOISE ABATEMENT OPTIONS
Noise abatement options generally are measures that can reduc
either the extent of aircraft noise exposure or the existing
and planned noise-sensitive land uses and numbers of people
exposed to high levels of aircraft noise. Reductions are
usually achieved through changes in (1) aircraft operational
procedures, (2) types of aircraft using an airport, or (3) ai
field layout. If required, the measures recommended for imp1
mentation at McClellan-Palomar Airport would be reflected in
revised noise exposure map for 1995 and a noise exposure map
for the theoretical capacity of the Airport. It should be
noted that the primary noise issues at the Airport concern
single-event noise rather than cumulative noise exposure.
DRAFT (6/(
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Noise abatement options that have been designated for further
evaluation are listed in Table A-1. I
The noise abatement options are divided into four categories:
1. Airfield Possibilities. These are options that call
for changes in the design or use of the airfield for
noise abatement purposes.
1
2. Operational Possibilities. These are options that
call for changes in the way aircraft are operated
during arrivals or departures; restrictions on the
type of aircraft used or the type of operations at t
Airport; or restrictions in the hours of aircraft I operations.
3. On-Airport Restrictions/Development Possibilities.
These are options that call for changes in the groun
operations of aircraft (such as engine runups) or in
the location of on-Airport facilities (except the
airfield).
4. Management Possibilities. These are options that
require the imposition of Airport management proce-
dures or controls to help achieve noise abatement. 1
DRAFT (6/E
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
1
a
I
I
8
1
Table A-l
NOISE ABATEMENT OPTIONS AND APPLICABILITY
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Opt ions Applicable
Airfield possibilities
1. Displace runway threshold No
NO 2. Construct runway extension 3. Build new runway No
Operational possibilities
4. Equalize or rotate use of runways No
5. Institute preferential runway use Yes
6. Change takeoff, climbout, or landing procedures yesa
7. Change flight patterns yesa
8. Fan-out aircraft departure tracks No
9. Institute noise abatement procedures for helicopters yesa
On-Airport restrictions/development possibilities
10. Relocate aircraft engine runup areas, restrict runup times, or change runup procedures Yes
11. Construct noise barriers or berms Yes
12. Relocate faciLities such as aircraft parking aprons No
13. Restrict ground movement of aircraft yesa
Manaqement possibilities
14. Limit aircraft types yesb
15. Limit number of aircraft operations No
16. Impose limited curfew Yes
17. Reschedule flight times No
18. Restrict training flights Ye sb
19. Impose noise-related landing fees No
Yes 20. Develop noise-monitoring system 21. Establish noise abatement staffs Yes
22. Establish noise abatement committees Yes
23. Identify noise-sensitive neighborhoods Yes
a. Portions already implemented. I b. Already implemented.
Source: KPMG Peat Marwick, May 1990.
DRAFT (6/
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
II
I
1
1
1
I
Although these actions would not reduce noise exposur
in and of themselves and would not be reflected in
revised noise exposure maps, they could help to moni-
tor or implement the options in the previous three I categories.
Initial Noise Abatement Evaluation Criteria
The noise abatement options were evaluated on the basis of
seven criteria specified by the Federal Aviation Administratic
(FAA) in FAR Part 150 [Section 150.35(b) and Appendix B,
Section B150.51. These seven criteria are as follows:
II
1. The option reduces existing incompatible land uses a
prevents or reduces the probability of allowing
additional incompatible land uses to be developed. I
2. The option does not impose an undue burden on
interstate or foreign commerce.
I 3. The option can be revised if conditions change.
4. The option is not unjustly discriminatory.
5. The option does not adversely affect aviation safety
or the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. 1
DRAFT (6/€
I
1
U
I
8
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
1
6. The option meets both the goals and needs of the locz
community and those of the national air transportatic
system, to the extent practicable.
N
7. The option can be implemented in a manner consistent
with all the powers and duties of the FAA 1 Administrator.
SPECIFIC NOISE ABATEMENT OPTIONS
This section describes the noise abatement options. 8
Airfield Possibilities
1. Displace runway threshold.
Description: When the threshold of a runway is
displac-.d, the touchdown area for a landing aircraft is
identified as being further down the runway than at the
actual physical runway end. This measure can increase
aircraft altitude along the approach flight track, there1
increising the distance between the aircraft and people
the environs. Runway threshold displacements can be of
some benefit to noise-sensitive land uses close to the
Airport and on centerline to the runway.
a
1
DRAFT (6/6
I
1
1
I
I
t
8
I
1
I
1
I
E
8
I
1
Evaluation: A general rule of thumb for determining 1 aircraft altitude given a runway threshold displacement i
that, for every 1,000 feet of displaced threshold, the
approaching aircraft altitude increases approximately
52 feet, assuming an average aircraft descent along a
3-degree glide slope.
Runway 6-24 is only 4,700 feet long, not long enough to
accommodate a displaced threshold that could noticeably
reduce aircraft arrival noise. Therefore, a displaced
threshold would not be applicable at McClellan-Palomar
Airport .
2. Construct runway extension.
Description: A runway extension can serve to increa
aircraft altitude along approach and departure paths,
thereby increasing the distance between aircraft and
people in the environs.
patible land uses can keep aircraft nlsise farther away
m
A runway extension towards com-
1 from noise-sensitive land uses.
Evaluation: Extending the east end of the runway is
not feasible due to the proximity of Palomar Airport Roa
and El Camino Real. Extending the west end of the runwa
DRAFT (6/€
I u
I
is also not feasible due to the proximity of industrial
development to the west of the Airport. 1
Therefore, runway extensions would not be applicable to I McClellan-Palomar Airport.
I 3. Build new runway.
Description: A new runway can provide noise level
reductions for existing residents of an airport environs
when the runway is in a location that is (1) compatible
with the off-airport land uses and (2) is consistent wit1
the operational characteristics of the airfield and the
airport .
I
8
1
I
8
1
#
1
1
Evaluation: The Airport is surrounded by industrial
development and it is the County's policy not to acquire
land for the purpose of constructing a new runway.
Therefore, construction of a new runway would not be
applicable at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Operational Possibilities
4. Equalize or rotate use of runways.
Description: Rotating runway use, provided there ar
no weather or safety problems, helps shift aircraft oper 8 tions over compatible land uses. Los Angeles Internatic
m
DRAFT (6/€ I
1
1
I
1
8
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
8
Airport rotates its operations to "over the water"
approaches and departures during acceptable air traffic
control conditions. This type of runway rotation has
relieved communities east of Los Angeles International
Airport of aircraft noise to a great extent.
I
I
Equalizing runway use redistributes aircraft traffic to
"spread the noise around" to all of the airport environs,
whether land uses are compatible or incompatible. There-
fore, all communities share the airport noise problem
equally. Implementation of such a measure requires a
sufficient number of runways to permit operations in
different directions. Los Angeles International Airport,
with two sets of parallel runways, splits operations to 1 spread the noise equally.
Evaluation: Currently, 98% of the operations at the
Airport are on Runway 24 due to prevailing winds and the
availability of an instrument landing system (ILS) on th I runway. Departures on Runway 6 have a greater noise
impact than arrivals on th. coitirnunities of San Marcos,
Oceanside, and Vista, and since many departures proceed
the coast, there would be no significant noise reduction
to the communities west of the Airport. Therefore, for
noise compatibility purposes, this option would not appl
to McClellan-Palomar Airport.
8
DRAFT (6/6
1
I
1
I
I
8
I
1
1
1
8
1
I
8
I
8
5. Institute preferential runway use. II Description: Preferential runway use procedures
involve the use of a specific runway(s) for arriving
and/or departing aircraft to reduce the number of flights
over noise-sensitive areas. Preferential runway use can
also involve maximizing or restricting the use of specifil
runways by particular types of aircraft or categories of
aircraft operations, or at certain times of day, in order
to reduce aircraft noise exposure.
II
Evaluation: Currently, 98% of the operations at the
Airport use Runway 24 due to winds and operational proce-
dures. However, during calm wind conditions, some aircra
do use Runway 6.
overflew the community of La Costa. Departures from
Runway 6 could also overfly the San Marcos, Oceanside, ar
Vista communities. These areas do not currently experi-
ence many low-altitude departures, and such operations cc
be significantly noisier than the arrival traffic these
The observed departures from Runway 6
1 communities now experience. It is therefore recommended
that Runway 24 be designated as the preferential runway
with less than a five-knot surface wind.
DRAFT (6/6
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
I u
E
1
I
II
t
I
6. Change Takeoff, Climbout, or Landing Procedures. 4 Description: Procedures can be changed to reduce
noise provided that aircraft performance, safety, and
traffic control requirements are met. Generally, proce-
dures to reduce noise during aircraft departures involve
steeper climb angles, some form of power reduction after
the aircraft is safely airborne, and delayed gear and fla
retraction. For aircraft arrivals, noise abatement pro-
cedures involve avoiding low, flat approaches that may s require higher power settings.
Aircraft pilots and the FAA, not the airport operator,
largely control the implementation of changes in aircraft
operating procedures. It is imperative that such proce-
dures be developed in close cooperation with pilot organ
zations and the FAA so that adherence to procedures can
expected. Enforcement is difficult because a pilot can
claim that deviation from a procedure was necessary for
safety reasons.
1
The procedures should be published in the appropriate
literature used by local and transient pilots (Jeppesen
Airport Approach Charts, the California Guide to Airport
the Airman's Information Manual, etc.).
DRAFT (6/
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
t
B
IC
I
1
1
8
Evaluation: Specific actions considered in connectio
with changing takeoff, climbout, or landing procedures at
McClellan-Palomar Airport include:
I
Raising the traffic pattern altitudes from 800 feet
MSL to 1,000 feet MSL for helicopters, from 1,200 fee
MSL to 1,500 feet MSL for small aircraft and from
1,500 feet MSL to 2,000 feet MSL for large aircraft.
The current pattern altitude exacerbates the noise
problem when the pattern is extended, due to conges-
tion, into the areas with higher terrain ar?d greater
population. The new pattern altitudes are within th
landing pattern envelope. The new altitudes would
also provide additional terrain clearance when the
pattern is extended to the east due to congestion (t
terrain three miles east of the Airport rises to an
elevation of about 700 feet).
1
Increasing the ILS angle and the visual approach slc
indicator (VASI) angle to 3.76 degrees. The current
glide slope is 3.2 degrees and brings aircraft over
the Palomar West Mobile Home Park at approximately
800 feet above ground level (AGL) when an aircraft
on the center of glide slope. The 3.76-degree glidc
slope is within FAA criteria for the descent rate o
I
I
DRAFT (6/
f
I
4
I
1
Q
8
t
I
'I
c
I.
E.
I
I
1
1
aircraft (400 feet per nautical mile) and would
provide 200 to 300 feet of additional altitude over
this community and the community of San Marcos. This
provides a 1 to 2 decibel (dB) reduction in the CNEL
over these communities. For single-event operations,
this procedure results in a reduction of 3 dB in the
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) values for jet aircraft an(
2 dB for prop aircraft.
1
I * Modifying the Oceanside (OCN) very high-frequency
omnidirectional radio range (VOR) approach for nonjet
aircraft (jets should not use this approach) to the
Airport as follows: Maintain a minimum altitude of
3,000 feet MSL at the OCN VOR, proceed at a 120-degrt
heading and descend to a minimum altitude of 2,000 fc
MSL by 4.0 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), desce
to a minimum altitude of 1,400 feet MSL by 7.0 DME.
The existing procedure requires that aircraft mainta
a minimum altitude of 3,000 feet MSL at the OCN VOR
and descend to a minimum altitude of 1,300 feet MSL
7.0 DME. The existing procedure allows aircraft to
descend to 1,300 feet MSL very early. The new proc
dure would keep aircraft at a higher altitude over
populated area of the cities of Oceanside and Carls
1
DRAFT (6,
I
I
4
B
I
I
I
8
Establishing a standard instrument departure (SID)
with the FAA concerning instrument flight rules (IFR)
turbojet and turbofan operations that will provide a
"gate" for initiating a climb or heading changes after
initial departure altitude is reached. Aircraft woulc
maintain a heading of 250 degrees and climb to a
minimum altitude of 2,000 feet MSL before crossing
Interstate 5 or the OCN 131-degree radial, then reducc
power as acceptable for safe flight, and maintain the
initial heading and initial altitude of 2,000 to
3,000 feet MSL until reaching the gate at three miles
past the shoreline.
n
II
The noise exposure analysis of this procedure was
performed in conjunction with a measure requiring all
Runway 24 visual departures to use the 250-degree
heading (Option 7).
)I
a
Conducting a test whereby arriving aircraft to
i
8
I
t m
B Runway 24 maintain their gear and flap settings
between the Palomar outer marker and the west edge of
the Palomar West Mobile Home Park. The test should
determine if this procedure is acceptable to pilots
and whether or not the public perceives a significant 1 noise reduction.
DRAFT (6/6/
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
a
I
I
8
7. Change Flight Patterns.
Description: d This measure can significantly reduce
noise exposure if substantial numbers of aircraft, or the
"noisiest" types of aircraft, can be routed over areas
that are less sensitive to noise, or if the amount of tirr
an aircraft flies at low altitudes over noise-sensitive
areas can be reduced. Other factors, such as airport
congestion, induced delay, and flight route and safety
must be considered in determining the feasibility of
changing flight patterns.
Tower could provide advisory information on the corridors
if controller workload permits.
authority to determine when corridors should not be used,
The FAA Air Traffic Control
The Tower has final
I Noise abatement procedures should be published in the
appropriate literature used by local and transient pilot!
(Jeppesen Airport Approach Charts, the California Guide
Airports, the Airman's Information Manual, etc.).
I Evaluation: Specific actions considered in connectic
with specifying approach and departure flight corridors <
McClellan-Palomar Airport include:
Runway 24 departures (runway heading is 245 degrees)
would make a right turn to heading of 250 degrees an 1
DRAFT (6/6
I
ll
1c
I
I
1
I
P
I
I
I
1
f
8
flying over the vacant area between the communities o
Terramar and Solamar. This ttgap" between the communi
ties is approximately 2,500 feet wide. Aircraft are
currently dispersed over a 7,000-foot wide area over-
flying the Solamar, Terramar, Seagate Village, and
Altamira communities.
I
Heading should be maintained until aircraft are at
least three miles offshore for jet aircraft and one
mile for nonjet aircraft. This procedure should be
performed by all jets regardless of direction of flic
and by turboprop and prop aircraft that proceed nortl
and south along the coast. Visual cues could be usel
as a guide, for example: remaining just right of th
intersection of Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Roa
#
8
Based on an analysis of noise exposure levels of
individual points on 23 acre grids around the Airpor
this procedure in conjunction with the Runway 24 jet
SID (Option 6) would result in these estimated
reductions of noise for the forecast 1995 operation:
level: from CNEL 59 to CNEL 55 for Solamar; from
CNEL 58 to CNEL 55 for Seagate Village; from CNEL 5
to CNEL 51 for Altamira; from CNEL 57 to CNEL 56 fo
Terramar; and from CNEL 62 to CNEL 61 for the Sudan
T
I
DRAFT (6/
1
1
I
I
3
r
I
I
0
i
I
I
1
1
8
#
1
Interior Mission. In addition, the number of direct
overflights of these neighborhoods would be reduced i
this procedure were implemented.
a
From analysis of FAA radar data, it was determined
that many aircraft attempting to fly the 250-degree
heading were drifting over the communities of Solamar
and Terramar. This could be caused by winds and pilc
technique. Therefore, in order to aid pilots in
overflying the gap, a visual reference such as the
intersection of Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Roac
could be used. Pilots would keep close to and to thl
right of this intersection.
The use of strobe lights as visual references was
evaluated. It was determined that they could be
misinterpreted as landing lights for Runway 6 and
therefore were ruled out.
I Positive course guidance provided by a navigational
aid, such as a terminal very high-frequency ormi-
directional radio rc,nge (TVOR) located in the gap,
would not provide sufficient accuracy to help keep
aircraft in the gap and would be very expensive.
DRAFT (6/(
4
@
I
I
3
I
I
f
1
I n
I
I
1
I
I
1
The 250-degree heading departure is now a voluntary
procedure at the Airport, but it has only partial
compliance.
the required Runway 24 departure procedure.
I)
It is recommended that this procedure be
Jet arrivals would use the ILS.
A new approach procedure for aircraft from the north
to replace the OCN VOR approach, and which utilizes i
left-hand pattern as opposed to the right-hand pattei
currently in use at the Airport, was evaluated. Cur-
rently, aircraft using the OCN VOR approach overfly
the OCN VOR and proceed on a 120-degree heading unti
entering the downwind section of the right-hand fligl
pattern at the Airport. The proposed procedure woulc
keep the arrival traffic offshore and to the west of
northbound departing traffic. Aircraft would turn
east approximdtely halfway between Palomar Airport
Road and the Batiquitos Lagoon, proceed inland
approxixately two miles, make a left turn toward the
Airport, and make a right turn to enter the downwind
section of the left-hand flight pattern. This proce
dure would eliminate many of the overflights of the
City of Carlsbad.
D
DRAFT (6/6
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
a
I r
8
1
t
f
f
I
There is an undesirable airspace interaction between
arriving aircraft proceeding south along the coast ai
departing aircraft performing the straight-out depar-
ture procedure, turning south down the coast, or tur-
ing north along the coast. The range of altitudes oj
departures in this area would be from 1,500 feet -to
3,000 feet MSL. Arriving aircraft would have diffi-
culty maintaining a higher altitude and then descend
ing to intercept the pattern altitude.
a
High terrain to the southeast of the Airport could
become an issue if the downwind segment of the arriv{
pattern is extended due to congestion (this is fre-
quently done now). Aircraft would also overfly the
neighborhoods that currently do not receive a large
number of overflights, including a mobile home park
the coast north of Poinsettia Lane; a mobile home pa
south of Poinsettia Lane and west of the San Diego
Freeway: the southern portion of Altamira and
Spinnaker Hills; and the northern portion of La Cost
Much of the area to be overflown using this left-han
pattern is also planned for residential development.
I
DRAFT (6/E
I
1
E
f
P
T
I
I
8
a
I
II
I
P
I
Therefore, this procedure would not be applicable to
McClellan-Palomar Airport for both airspace and noisc
compatibility purposes.
1)
When air traffic permits, the noisier jet aircraft
(Lear 24, Sabreliner, etc.) visual departures on
Runway 24 would turn right as soon as feasible and
proceeding direct to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet.
This procedure could only be used when it does not
conflict with OCN VOR arrivals overflying Carlsbad.
Arrivals are to stay to the northeast of the lagoon,
and departures to the southwest, until over the
inlet.
number of the noisiest aircraft, and 50% compliance
This procedure could only be used by a small
I could be expected due to air traffic congestion. Th
procedure was eliminated from consideration due to t
limited reduction of noise to the neighborhoods arou
the Airport and the concern of the FAA Tower staff
about undesirable airspace interactions with aircraf
using the OCN VOR arrival route. I
8. Fan-out aircraft del’arture tracks.
Description: - Fanning-out of aircraft departure trac
(divergent departure headings) tends to diffuse rather 1 than reduce noise levels. The proc;.dure is intended to
DRAFT (6/t
II
t
1
I
I
E
#
I
8
1
I
1
I
E
1s
1:
see that all affected communities share the noise exposur
from aircraft overflights on an equal basis. I
As with rotating the use of runways, fanning tends to
"spread the noise around" rather than to concentrate it i
one or two areas. The difficulty is that many cornmunitit
not currently exposed to noise are unwilling to "share"
and, because the residents are unaccustomed to aircraft
noise, it causes more annoyance than usual.
Evaluation: Since there is an opportunity to
concentrate departing aircraft over noise compatible lan
uses, there would be no benefit in implementing a
fanning-out procedure.
9. Institute noise abatement procedures for helicopters.
Description: This measure would establish specific
approach and departure corridors and altitudes to be use
by helicopters.
for an airport opers.tor to est-8blish and enforce because
the current FAA air traffic control system does not
control helicopter flight.
Helicopter procedures can be difficult I:
Evaluation: Helicopters constitute a small portion 3 the total aircraft operations at the Airport but do cauc
DRAFT (6/f
I
B
1
i
I
t
I
t
f
1
a significant number of the noise complaints.
these complaints stem from operation of a military CH53
Echo helicopter (a large twin-engine helicopter), which
uses McClellan-Palomar Airport to practice ILS approaches
McClellan-Palomar Airport is the only airport in the arei
that can be used for this type of practice operation. 11
the past, helicopters made several practice approaches
before leaving the pattern, and although this practice
operation occurred only once or twice a month, it gen-
erated a large number of noise complaints, especially frc
the community of San Marcos and from the Palomar West
Mobile Home Park. In March 1990, a verbal agreement was
reached between the Airport Manager at McClellan-Palomar
Airport and the military to limit the number of approach1
to two instead of several practice ILS approaches during
each practice session.
Many of e
1
t
The Batiquitos Lagoon area was used for practice operati
by Flight Trails, a company operating helicopters at the
Airport and constituting the majority of helicopter oper,
tions. It accounted for many of the complaints about
helicopter noise in the La Costa and Encinitas areas. I
December of 1989, Flight Trails stopped using the lagoon
as a practice area and moved to the unpopulated Black
Mountain area about 15 miles southeast of the Airport.
t
a
I
1
I
1
DRAFT (6/6
I
I
I
I
R
li
II
I r
I
1
I
f
1
I
1
Flight Trails has also signed an FAA letter of agreement
establishing helicopter routes to be used in and out of
McClellan-Palomar Airport. These routes are used by mos
of the helicopter operators, but exceptions are made wher
helicopters are used in medical or police emergencies.
3
I
The Oceanside Police Department has leased space at the
Airport for basing relatively quiet Enstrorn helicopters
for use in police patrols. The departure procedure to bc
used by the helicopters would be to follow Palomar Airpo
Road west, remaining on the right side of the road, to
Interstate 5 and proceed up the right-hand side of Inter
state 5 to the City of Oceanside. Arriving helicopters
would perform the reverse procedure, remaining on the le
side of Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Road. Arrivals
would come close to the Terramar, Solamar, Seagate Villa
and Sudan Interior Mission neighborhoods. Consideration
should be given to a new arrival procedure that would us
the vacant land between the main City of Carlsbad and
Leisure Village neighborhoods. The vacant area extends
from the Airport north to the boundary of the City of
Oceanside.
IE
DRAFT (6/€
I
II
I(
The only additional helicopter noise abatement procedure
for consideration would be that the maximum helicopter
route altitude be increased from 800 feet MSL to 1,000 fe
MSL. This would be possible if the Airport pattern
8
t altitude was raised.
1 On-Airport Restrictions/Development Possibilities
10. Relocate aircraft engine runup areas, restrict runup
times, or change runup procedures.
Description: Aircraft engine runups are a source of
I
!
I
t
c
t
t
R
#
E
B
noise at many airports.
include relocating runup areas, rotating the use of runu:
areas on the basis of climatic conditions, and construct
ing noise barriers or berms (see Alternative 11 below).
Many airports restrict runups to certain hours, keeping
night operations to a minimum or not allowing runups at
all during specified nighttime hours.
Measures to reduce such noise
I
t It may also be possible to restrict engine power setting
to specified levels and to reduce the amount of operatin
time at various levels. "Hush-houses" for engine testin
have been constructed at some airports where considerabl
engine overhauling is done.
Evaluation: Engine runups are a source of noise
complaints from the La Costa neighborhood. An engine
DRAFT (6/t
I
I v
I
io
1
b
1
8
I
1
I
1
I
8
runup area can be located on the west side of the
Airport. Aircraft should face east, with engines facing
west, so that the noise will be directed at the clear zor
to the west. Also, engine maintenance runups are
currently restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
This measure should continue. This option does apply at R McClellan-Palomar Airport.
11. Construct noise barriers or berms.
Description: Noise barriers or berms have limited
value as a method of noise abatement, except perhaps whe
noise-sensitive land uses are within 150 feet of the air
field, aircraft parking aprons, or engine runup sites.
certain instances, a noise barrier or berm functions mor
as an effective psychological control than as an actual
aircraft noise abatement measure. Although some of the
noise created at an airport is shielded from surrounding
neighborhoods, berms do little, if anything, to reduce
noise once aircraft are airborne. However, if a berm is
an aesthetic improvement, the visual shielding of aircra
and the airport may play an important psychological role
in "reducing" th2 noise level perceived by nearby resi-
dents. This concept may be equivalent in some -lays to t
adage, "Out of sight, out of mind."
I
r
I DRAFT (6/t
I
1
I
I
1
JI
I
I
L
I
11
a
1
I
E
Evaluation: Because of the proximity of the engine
maintenance runup area to the future industrial park to
the west of the Airport, a noise berm may be considered i
the noise from the runups is excessive. The noise berm
would be located around the engine runup area, covering
the southwest corner of the Airport property.
berm could be 15 feet high and about 1,000 feet long.
Noise reduction from the berm would vary depending on thc
exact position of the aircraft, but could be estimated tc
be from 4 to 6 dB at the industrial park. This option
does apply at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Y
The noise 1
12. Relocate facilities, such as aircraft parking aprons.
Description: Relocating facilities can sometimes be
of benefit, especially when a neighborhood may be locate
to the side of a major runway or near an aircraft parkin
apron (perhaps for air cargo or general aviation air-
craft). Under such circumstances, residents may be
bothered more by ground power units, engine starts, and
taxiing operations than by flight operations. I
Although it is unlikely that a facility such as a termir
building or an air cargo building would be relocated ju:
to reduce the noise from localized ground sources arounc
it, noise should at least be considered when the I
DRAFT (6/r
1
8
1
I
1 r
I
I
1
t
1
1
I
I
opportunity or the necessity to relocate facilities arise
during the master planning process. As a general rule,
the aircraft parking apron should be located as far as
possible from residential areas.
located between the apron and nearby residences.
1
Any buildings should bt
Evaluation: The apron area at McClellan-Palomar
Airport is located adjacent to compatible land uses.
Therefore, this option would not apply.
13. Restrict ground movement of aircraft.
Description: This measure is aimed at reducing the
need to use ground power units, make engine starts, and
taxi. An appropriate regulation might require that an
aircraft not be moved to alternate gates or from a main-
tenance hangar to a gate under its own power, but that i
be towed instead. The hours that the regulation would b
enforced may or may not be specified. Other types of
restrictions on ground operations could require pilots t
check for delays with ground control prior to engine
start. Such "gate hold" procedures reduce idling time,
taxiing noise, and fuel consumption. I
Restrictions on ground movement of aircraft should not I affect normal arrivals and departures or start, taxi, an
E DRAET (6/E
I
0 w v
f
I
It
I
t
I
‘J
It
1.
1
I
1
f
I
B
shutdown procedures.
purposes or schedule changes would require towing.
restrictions would not reduce the noise from an individui
ground operation, but, because the number of operations
would be reduced, total noise exposure would also
decrease.
However, operation for maintenance
The
However, improvement from this type of measure would be
small, noticed only by residents quite near the apron
areas who can identify significant noise from ground
sources. An airport that has a regulation against repos
tioning aircraft under power is Boston Logan Internation,
Airport, where no aircraft can be repositioned under sel
propulsion at any time.
EvLluation: Ground movement of aircraft does not
currently constitute a noise problem at McClellan-Paloma
Airport. However, when demand increases and aircraft ar
waiting in queues on the taxiway for takeoff, the Tower
may elect to hold aircraft at their tiedown or hangaL
location.
when there are five or more aircraft in the departure
queue, a restriction on ground operations could require
pilots to check for delays with the Tower prior to engin
During times of day when delays are high or
1 start. Therefore, this option would apply when demand
DRAFT (6/6
E e
c
I$ P
I
1
E
P
I
I r
II
ff
I
;I
;I
and/or delays increase at the Airport.
currently being used when the departure queue is long.
This procedure is c
Management Possibilities
14. Limit aircraft types.
Description: An airport operator may impose
nondiscriminatory restrictions on the types of aircraft
serving a particular airport. The acceptable manner for
imposing aircraft-type limitations is to identify maximur
aircraft departure and arrival noise limits. These limii
must be reasonable and balance the needs of the aviation
users with the need to reduce community noise ecposure.
FAR Part 36* is the generally accepted reference for ide
tifying aircraft noise levels. Several advisory circula
that show the published noise levels of various FAA
certificated aircraft are associated with this Federal
Aviation Regulation. In conformance with FAR Part 36,
most airline aircraft in the United States now comply wi
the noise level requirements of Stage 2 aircraft, which
I
*U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administ tion, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, "Noise Standards Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification," Washington,
D.C.r December 1969, as amended. Under these regulations, t FAA established maximum limits on noise emissions from civil aircraft and required full compliance by the air carriers by 1985. Amendments to the regulations extended the compliance date to 1988 for certain types of aircraft, such as two-engi jet aircraft with less than lOG seats.
DRAFT (6/E
1
8
I
li
0
I
I
c
I(
I
I
I
1
I
1
include the B-727-100/200, B-737, DC-9-10/30, and
Lear 24. Most airline aircraft manufactured now are
quieter and are called Stage 3 aircraft.
not contain any provisions for the phasing of Stage 3
aircraft, which include the B-737-300, MD-80/DC-9-80r
B-757, B-767, and Lear 35.
I.
FAR Part 36 doc
Some airport operators have attempted to require greater
use of Stage 3 aircraft at their airports, but this has
generally been unsuccessful because Stage 2 aircraft
currently predominate the United States airline fleet
mix. The manufacturers of Stage 3 aircraft are also
limited by production facilities and the ability of the
airlines to finance a major change in their fleets.
1
Evaluation: Aircraft-type limitations have met with
limited success at numerous airports throughout the
country.
laws can evolve into expensive legal battles, and monito
ing and enforcing this type of noise abatement rnec:sure i
expensive and requires a sufficient administrative and
Conflicts with interstate or foreign commerce
1 management staff.
McClellan-Palomar Airport is being planned as a general
aviation airport to accommodate aircraft operating at a I
DRAFT (6/(
I
1
1
0
@ r
I
1
1
1
E
I
1$
1
1
maximum weight of 60,000 pounds or less. Although this
weight limitation would accommodate the larger aircraft
that are currently operating at the Airport, most of the
aircraft forecast to be operating at the Airport would bc
single- and two-engine piston props.
would not accommodate the larger jets nor a portion of ti
commuter airline aircraft fleet. Therefore, through the
design of the facility, the Department of Aviation would
be able to control many of the types of aircraft that
would operate at the Airport. Further limitations in thc
form of regulations controlling the types of aircraft th<
may operate at the Airport are not required.
21
The runway length
I
15. Limit number of aircraft operations.
Description: Aircraft operational limitations for a
airport can be accomplished through various methods such
as quotas, slot allocations, and identifying operational
levels in lease agreements. An airport operator retains
the authority to impose such restrictions. However, the
U.S. Constitution and federal laws prohibit an airport
operator from taking any action that imposes an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly dis-
criminates against a particular airport user, or derogat
any of the powers and duties of the FAA.
derived from such limitations depends on how restrictive
a
The benefit !!I
DRAFT .( 6/E
I
I
L
limitation is and how much it contributes to the reductic 3 of noise impacts.
Evaluation: This option is usually used only when
airports are at capacity. McClellan-Palomar Airport is
currently not at capacity, and therefore it is not neces-
sary to restrict the numbers or types of operations at
this time. For this reason, and because of the potentia
conflicts with federal law regarding access to airports,
this option is not recommended.
mt
I
Q
I
m 16. Impose curfews.
Description: Curfews are regulations banning aircra
operations during certain nighttime hours. An airport
operator can adopt and enforce a curfew. The operator
must, howiver, work very closely with airport users to
identify economic impacts or hardships that might ensue,
and weigh them against the benefits. Because the impetu
for a curfew probably comes from neighboring communities
an, because Tower operations may be changed, representa-
tives of surrounding communities and the FAA must be
included in the decision-making process.
I
1
I
f
1
1'
1
1
T
Many airport operators have developed partial rather tha
full curfews. Partial curfews can be effective if they 1
DRAFT (6/6
I
I
1
1
1
E
I
1
1
I
I
I
I!
I
i
can be established to restrict only those operations that I are causing the problem.
Evaluation: At McClellan-Palomar Airport, less than
1% of the current operations and 1.5% of five-year fore-
cast operations take place at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).
An analysis of a nighttime curfew for all jet aircraft
showed that the reduction in CNEL levels would be less
than 0.5 dB to the affected neighborhoods.
I
However, there are significant complaints from the
surrounding communities about the nighttime and early
morning (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.) noisy Stage 2 jet
departures. Such departures appear to occur infrequent1
A letter of agreement should be signed with those Airpor
users operating jets to restrict Stage 2 jet departure
operations between 10 p.m. an4 7 a.m.
I
17. Reschedule flight times.
Description: Rescheduling of flight times may be do
in connection with a curfew or as a separate action. Wh
nighttime restrictions are adopted at smaller airports,
some arrivals and departures are merely rescheduled to
either side of a curfew, if one exists. At other airpor
where there are many flights clustered at the beginning I
DRAFT (6/€
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
end of the nighttime period, rescheduling can be benefi-
cia1 in reducing noise exposure. (Nighttime operations
are equivalent to 10 daytime operations in the calculati
of CNEL and noise exposure.) For many night flights, th
means a shift of less than an hour, and although schedul
changes can have far-reaching effects at other airports
the air transportation system, these shifts in schedulin
can sometimes be accomplished.
i
1 Evaluation: - Rescheduling flight times does not appl
to general aviation airports such as McClellan-Palomar
Airport .
18. Restrict training flights. I Description: Restrictions on training flights may
include, but are not limited to (1) restrictions on
multiple practice instrument landings or approaches;
(2) diversion of training flights to other less noise-
sensitive airports; (3) altitude restrictions for certai
aircraft operations or types of aircraft; and (4) in the
case of military aircraft, restrictions on formation
approaches or departures, restrictions on overhead landi
patterns, and rescheduling of flights to less disturbin5
times. An annoying type of training operation is the
"touch-and-go" (continuous takeoff and landing) because
I
1
DRAFT (6/t
1
I
1
I
u
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
8
I
the aircraft keeps flying at low altitudes in the airport
traffic pattern.
Evaluation: McClellan-Palomar Airport has a I restriction on jet training. Also, military aircraft are
required to obtain prior permission from the Airport
Manager before using the Airport. No further restrictior
are required.
I 19. Impose noise-related landing fees.
Description: Noise-related landing fees are
differential airport user fees designed to charge higher
rates for aircraft that make a larger contribution to thc
overall aircraft noise exposure at an airport. Theoreti
cally, fees would be based on the noise an aircraft
generates--the noisier the aircraft, the higher the user
fee. One approach might be to assess aircraft fees in
relation to the noise produced relative to FAR Part 36
certificated noise levels. Noise-related or time-of-dai
user fees could encourage airlines to use new equipment,
conduct fewer nighttime operations, drop out of that
airport market, or pay the fees. Funds generated from
such a user fee could be used by the airport operator tc
fund other noise abatement or noise mitigation measures
I
I
DRAFT (6/1
1
I
B
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
Evaluation: This option has little or no applica-
bility to most general aviation airports.
20. Develop a noise monitoring system. 1 Description: A noise monitoring system does not
directly reduce aircraft noise exposure but can be used t
quantify community noise exposure, identify areas that
continually experience aircraft noise problems, and assis
in implementing other noise abatement measures.
The output of a noise monitoring system can include
information on single-event aircraft noise, runway use,
flight track use, airport ground noise, community
background noise, and cumulative aircraft noise.
A permanent noise monitoring system can be expensive to
install and operate, depending on the capabilities and
sophistication of the system. A portable system can be
less expensive and can provide flexibility in choosing
locations for and hours of monitoring. It is, however,
less effective in providing information on long-term noi
exposure in an area and in monitoring compliance with
noise abatement procedures. A qualified operator and
interpreter would be required to operate either system.
I
e DRAFT (6/1
1
II
I
1
8
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
Evaluation: A permanent noise monitoring system coul
be used to validate the effectiveness of the noise abate-
ment procedures at the Airport and could be used to quan-
tify noise problems in communities in the future.
installation of a permanent noise monitoring system for
this purpose should be considered at McClellan-Palomar
Airport. Additional staffing would be required to operat
the system and to interpret its output.
The I
8 A portable noise monitoring system (possibly to be used .
conjunction with a permanent system) would allow the
flexibility of performing noise monitoring at a variety (
locations in the Airport environs and could be shared wi
other County airports.
21. Establish noise abatement staffs,
- Description: Noise abatement staffs have been creat
at many airports to process complaints and to initiate a
coordinate noise compatibility programs for the control
aircraft noise.
made to make the public aware of airport efforts to
control aircraft noise.
Recently, a considerable effort has bee
Evaluation: To date, the noise complaints at the
Airport have been handled by the Airport Manager.
DRAFT (6/1
I*
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
8
t
8
Recently the number of noise complaints has increased
dramatically, primarily due to the public's awareness of
this study.
the Airport Manager from performing his other duties, or
if a noise monitoring system is installed, additional
staff will be required.
If the handling of noise complaints prevents
I
22. Establish noise abatement committees.
Description: Establishment of a noise abatement
committee is not an "operational strategy," but such
committees do provide a forum for the airport and the
community to exchange information and ideas on noise
abatement.
program, these committees should have broad representatio
from the affected communities, airport users, special
interest groups, and the airport operator.
can influence development actions and make constructive
contributions to the airport master planning process. Th
committees can also aid in the dissemination of informa-
tion to airport users and the public to make them aware o
any developments regarding airport noise.
8
To plan and implement a noise abatement
The committee
Evaluation: - The Palomar Airport Advisory Committee
should continue to provide such a forum.
DRAFT (6/6/
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I u
1
I
I
I
23. Identify noise-sensitive neighborhoods.
Description: Neighborhoods in the environs of the
Airport would be designated as noise-sensitive for pur-
poses of developing noise abatement procedures.
hoods would be identified on a map on the basis of noise
contours, Airport Influence Area, distances from runways,
noise complaints, and concerns expressed by the public at
public information sessions, Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee meetings, and in letters to the County.
should be updated as development around the Airport
continues.
Neighbor 8
The mz I
Pilots would be given a map of the local area with noise-
sensitive areas indicated and would be requested to be
aware of these areas and to avoid flying over them at lot
altitudes.
I
Evaluation: Identification of the noise-sensitive
areas around the Airport would provide pilots with addi-
tional information they could use to avoid these areas a
would also aid in the planning of future noise abatement
procedures. A map for this purpose would be more specif
in reference to the noise-sensitive areas than the map
shown in the Palomar Airport Noise Control Plan.
DRAFT (6/6
1
B
1
I
I
t
I
1
I
8
1
I
It
1
1 u
NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS
Fifteen noise mitigation options were identified and evaluated
to determine if they would be suitable for implementation in
the environs of McClellan-Palomar Airport. These 15 options
are listed in Table A-2, and those recommended to be consider€
for implementation are indicated.
8
The 15 options have been divided into two distinct categories
8 1. Remedial. These are options that can help increase
the compatibility of existing incompatible land uses
2. Preventive. These are options that can help reduce
the probability of additional incompatible land uses I being developed.
Initial Noise Mitigation Evaluation Criteria
The 15 options were evaluated on the basis of the following
criteria:
1. The option reduces existing incompatible land uses.
2. The option prevents or reduces the probability of
allowing additional incompatible land uses to be
developed in areas exposed to high levels of aircraf
noise.
DRAFT (6/(
1
I
II
I
8
8
1
B
8
1
I
1
I
R
I
Table A-2
NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS AND APPLICABILITY
McClellan-Palomar Airport
Opt ions Applicable
Remedial
1. Acquire property in fee simple NO
2. Acquire avigation easements on developed property No
3. Establish redevelopment programs No
4. Provide soundproofing for certain existing incompatible structures No R 5. Provide property transaction assistance No
e
Preventive
6. Continue comprehensive planning and urban growth
7. Sequence the implementation of capital improvements
management Yes
and public works projects to be consistent with land use compatibility objectives No
8. Acquire development rights No
9. Establish a transfer of development rights program No
10. Change zoning Ye 5
11. structures Ye 5
12. Require the granting of avigation easements for all
future development in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise Yes
13. Require fair disclosure Ye5
14. Institute tax incentives Yes
15. Encourage the continuance of FHA mortgage insurance
Require soundproofing of new noise-sensitive
I policies and practices No
Source: KPMG Peat Marwick, May 1990. e
DRAFT (6j
I
1
8
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
8
1
3. The option is consistent with policies of San Diego
County.
4. The option is consistent with policies of the affecte I local jurisdictions.
5. The option would have a positive effect on the
existing and planned land use development pattern.
1 6. The option can be implemented under existing laws.
7. The option is economically feasible.
8. The option is financially feasible.
9. The option is politically feasible.
1 10. The option is feasible for early implementation.
In order for an option to be recommended for McClellan-Paloma
Airport, it does not necessarily have to meet all of the cri-
teria. For example, although an option may provide substanti
benefit, existing laws may not permit it to be implemented
immediately. Therefore, consideration might be given to
including the option in the Noise Compatibility Prograr: with
the recommendation that enabling legislation be sought.
DRAFT (6/2
1
1
II
I
I
t
I
e
8
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
SPECIFIC NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS
This section provides a description of the noise mitigation
options and an evaluation of their applicability to the
environs of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Remedial
1. Acquire property in fee simple.
Description: Fee simple acquisition refers to the
full purchase by an airport operator of land and improve-
ments thereon.
most positive means of achieving land use compatibility i
an airport environs.
airport purposes, (2) leased for airport-compatible uses,
(3) resold with avigation easements and deed restrictions
that would permit only specific compatible uses,
(4) retained by the airport operator and maintained as
permanent open space, or (5) used by other governmental
agencies for public purposes, such as storage yards and
parks, or for other noise-tolerant uses.
usually limited to areas exposcl to aircraft noise level2
in excess of CNEL 75.
CNEL 70 to 75 noise exposure range might also be acquirec
1 Acquisition in fee simple is perhaps the
Land acquired can be (1) used for
8
Acquisition is
On occasion, properties in the
Evaluation: There are no incompatible land uses,
either existing or proposed, in the CNEL 70+ noise
DRAFT (6/6,
I
1
8
I
8
t
8
1.
I
3
B
I
1
I
1
exposure area at McClellan-Palomar Airport.
this option is not recommended.
Therefore,
2. Acquire avigation easements on developed property. 8 Description: An avigation easement is a form of real
estate acquisition that involves less-than-fee purchase c
property to compensate property owners for the right to
overfly the property and cause noise, vibration, or other
possible effects of aircraft operations, and/or to imposc
restrictions on the use or development of the property tc
enhance aircraft safety or maintain land use compatibil-
ity. Easements are permanent and enforceable through tht
civil courts, and the title is held until sold or
released. In some states, noise-sensitive properties
covered by avigation easements are considered to be
compatible with the airport.
I
i
Evaluation: The Sudan Interior Mission, located on
the west side of Laurel Tree Road, has a conditional use
permit which specifies, "If the updated Land Use Plan fc
Palomar Airport indicates that the subject property is i
a noise impact area (65 CNEL), the applicant shall grant
appropriate easements or execute appropriate agreement 8
DRAFT (6/r
I
8
4
I
8
f
I
8
1
1
I
1
I
1
documents so that the city, and the airport will not be
held responsible for airport-related noise impacts."*
If the updated 1995 forecast noise exposure map shows the
Sudan Interior Mission to be within the CNEL 65 area,
granting of an avigation easement would be necessary.
8
3. Establish redevelopment programs.
Description: Redevelopment programs, especially wher
they are implemented primarily through the private sectoi
are a satisfactory way of achieving land use compatibilit
and encouraging economic development in an airport
environs.
P
1 Redevelopment programs involve the removal of existing
incompatible land uses and replacement with compatible
ones. To an extent, redevelopment is similar to fee
simple acquisition, except that the intent is to retain
the property in private ownership. Most redevelopment
programs in the United States are implemented and super-
vised by a local redsvelopment agency. In some communi-
ties, state enabling legislation permits the redevelopme
process to be handled entirely or partially by private
a
II
*City of Carlsbad Planning Department, "Planning Commission Resolution No. 1740," December 1980.
DRAFT (6/f
I
8
rn
1
t
i
I
I
t
I
8
I
I
developers.
acquires the land and relocates displaced persons, but tk
developer provides any additional public improvements and
infrastructure (such as roads and utilities), as well as
The developer or the redevelopment agency m
I redeveloping the land.
Evaluation: Because most of the land near the Airpor
is either vacant or in compatible uses, redevelopment
would not apply.
4. Provide soundproofing for certain existing incompatible 8 structures.
Description: Soundproofing can improve the interior
environments of structures by reducing noise caused by
aircraft and by improving the quality of life for occu-
pants.
of a structure anJ thus reduce energy consumption.
It can also improve the overall energy efficienc: E
Soundproofing is the incorporation of materials into a
structure or the redesign of portions of a structure in
order to reduce the transmission of exterior noise (i.e. 8 aircraft noise) into interior spaces. Soundproofing of
existing noise-sensitiJe structures, such as residences
and schools, can be accomplished at the expense of the
airport operator or through some form of cost sharing. 1
DRAFT (6/6
I
I
q
1
8
I
E
@
c
I
8 n
I
I
II
t
I
Many methods of soundproofing are available, including
(1) sealing and weather stripping windows, doors, vents,
and external openings, (2) replacing hollow-core doors wi
solid doors, thereby eliminating direct paths of exterior
interior noise transmission, (3) installing central air
conditioning, acoustically treated ceiling panels, wall
panels, and double-glazed windows, (4) installing storm
windows if the climate is appropriate, (5) eliminating
windows and replacing them with solid walls, and (6)
lating entryways, attics, and crawl spaces.
systems are required if the soundproofing includes sealir
windows.
I
ins[ 4 Ventilation
The purpose of soundproofing would be to maintain an
exterior-to-interior noise level of CNEL 45 or less in a
habitable rooms or in rooms where the noise can be most
disturbing, such as bedrooms. In an area exposed to
aircraft noise of CNEL 65, a noise level reduction (NLR)
of 20 dB would be required to achieve the interior level
of CNEL 45; an NLR of 25 dB would be required in an area
of CNEL 70; and an NLR of 30 dB would be required in an
area of CNEL 75.
DRAFT (6/t
1
I
.)
il
1
I
I
II
I
1
I
111
I
t
I
Normal home construction, even without special acoustical
treatment, employs methods that reduce the level of
exterior noise transmitted to interior spaces. Although
the actual NLR associated with the construction of a
typical house in the environs of McClellan-Palomar Airpor
has not been measured, an NLR of 20 dB is considered to k
average for a house whose windows are partially open.
a
Reducing noise by more than 20 dB is not usually possiblc
unless windows and doors are completely closed. If they
are not closed, no significant additional noise reductio]
occur by increasing wall thickness from single-wall to
double-wall construction or by increasing the mass of thc
wall or roof system. Therefore, an adequate NLR to
CNEL 45 could probably be achieved with normal construc-
tion if central air conditioning and/or mechanical venti
lation were provided so that windows and doors could be
U
c
8 kept closed.
Evaluation: Currently, no homes are exposed to noi:
of CNEL 65 or greater. Thus, remedial soundproofing is
not necessary at this time.
DRAFT (6/
8
8 v
I
I
1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
1c
f
P
5. Provide property transaction assistance.
Description: Property transaction assistance (PTA,
formerly called purchase assurance or purchase guarantee)
is a program whereby the airport operator guarantees
owners of residential property that their homes will be
purchased at fair market value if they decide to sell.
The program is usually limited to single-family dwelling5
within areas exposed to relatively high levels of aircraf
noise, generally about CNEL 70 or higher. However, this
criterion may vary depending on the number of dwellings
involved and the overall aircraft noise exposure.
n
8
If the property cannot be sold by the owner on the open
real estate market within a specified period of time, th
airport operator (or a third party agent for the operato
can purchase the home, provide appropriate soundproofing
and then resell it, usually with an avigation easement
attached to and made part of the property deed of the ne
owner.
The goal OF a property transaction assistance program is
to improve noise-affected residential neighborhoods by
(1) stabilizing such areas, (2) protecting the existing
(and future) property tax base, and (3) enhancing local
property values. The program is only recommended in
DRAFT (6,’
8
0
1
B
1
I
1
1
1
I
c
I
I
1
1
I
I
residential areas where it is desirable to maintain the
residential land use throughout the foreseeable future.
Property transaction assistance programs are offered in
neighborhoods exposed to aircraft noise where a majority
of residents choose to remain but a few may desire to mov
because they perceive noise levels as too high.
program should be voluntary, with no relocation benefits
available to the property owner.
I
Such a
Evaluation: There are no homes in the CNEL 65 or
greater noise exposure area.
not apply.
Therefore, this option doe:
f Preventive
6. Continue comprehensive planning and urban growth
management.
Description: Comprehensive planning for an airport
environs is a coordinated effort to ensure the compatibi'
ity of airport operations with the needs of the airport
environs and the region. Such planning can also safegua
the general public welfare by presenting recommendations
to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts and mitigate
unavoidable environmental impacts to the maximum extent
possible. The purpose of the planning is to seek prac-
tical solutions and to formulate and implement cornpatibl
land use measures consistent with airport development.
DRAFT (6/6
4
B
Y c
I
t
I
I
f r
Y
I s
I
I
I
1
One technique used in comprehensive planning is urban
growth management, a process that identifies the demands
on municipal facilities, and improvements or services
created by any proposed residential, commercial, indus-
trial, or other type of development. The process is
intended to satisfy such demands; to identify any dele-
terious effects of development; and to protect residents
against such effects by minimizing the costs of municipa!
facilities, improvements, and services. It is not
intended to prevent growth, but rather to avoid free or
disorganized development. Policies must be formulated ti
avoid scattered pockets of isolated development, which c(
have harmful environmental effects and be incompatible
with airport operations. It is also costly to provide
services (utilities, roads, school busing, etc.) to
support such "leapfrog" development.
1
1
The effectiveness of comprehensive planning may be limit
in a multijurisdictional situation. Also, if it is to 1:
successful, a comprehensive plan must be more than just
guide to future growth that can be ignored when
development decisions are made.
- Evaluation: The areas most affected by noise from t
Airport are within the City of Carlsbad. The City has
DRAFT (6/1
1
8
3
I
t
1
1
8
8
1
I
I
I
It
T
planned for compatible land uses to the extent possible.
However, some minor amendments to the City's plan might b
appropriate to achieve maximum land use compatibility.
The same is true for the plan governing those portions of
the environs within the cities of Oceanside, Vista, and
San Marcos.
6
It is recommended that the San Diego County Airport Land
Use Commission's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
McClellan-Palomar Airport be amended to reflect the new
forecast noise exposure area in the Airport Influence
Area. Also, the noise elements of the general plans of
San Diego County and the City of Carlsbad should be
amended to reflect the new noise exposure maps.
I
7. Sequence the implementation of capital improvements and public works projects to be consistent with land use compatibility objectives. a
Description: The timing of capital improvements and
public works projects can strongly influence land use
trends and demands. Such projects may include road con-
struction or widening, the development of schools and pa
and recreation facilities, and the building of water and
sewer mains and flood control facilities. The timing of
these projects is related to urban growth management in
that denial or delay of projects (where local authority
I
DRAFT (6/€
4
I
9
II
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
i
I
I
I
legally permits it) serves to discourage development. In
contrast, early completion of such projects encourages
development. Capital improvements related to public work
projects can greatly influence land use or reduce the
demand for growth in an area. I
Evaluation: Sequencing the timing of major capital
improvements such as roads and sewer and water lines to
limit urbanization is an option mostly used in undevelopc
areas. Most major roads and utilities are already in
place in the area around the Airport. Therefore, this
option would have limited applicability in the environs (
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
I
II: 8. Acquire development rights.
Description: The rights of landowners to develop a
parcel of land in specific uses arc governed by a juris-
diction's development regulations, usually through a
zoning ordinance or, in some cases, through subdivision
regulations or a general plan. Land is oftcsn assessed c
a combination of its "resource" value and its "commoditl
value. The resource value is the value of the property
its natural state; the commodity value is an artificial
value placed on the land by the marketplace--that is, i.
value for development purposes. Under development righ
I
DRAFT (6,'
8
B
E
B
b
II
I
&
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
1
acquisition, the airport operator purchases all or por-
tions of the commodity value, and the property remains in
private ownership.
1 Development rights are most often purchased for undevelop
land that could have some productive use (e.g., for agri-
culture or recreation, such as golf,) and that is likely
to be developed for urban uses.
rights acquisition has been used in various parts of the
United States to preserve agriculture, especially in are;
where land was assessed at its "highest and best" use. :
these cases, the commodity value was based on a potentia:
urban use, rather than on the existing agricultural use.
For example, development
I
Higher taxes and inflated value provide an incentive for
landowner to sell to developers. But if all development
rights are acquired by a second party, land can be
restricted to agriculture (or other type of open space o
rural use) in perpetuity, and the assessed valuation wou
be based on the agricultural use.
In other cases, only a portion of development rights is
purchased. An airport operator could purchase the right
to develop a property in certain noise-sensitive uses 01
the right to develop a parcel in intense uses or high
DRAFT (6/1
1
I
4
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Y
8
I
a
1
densities. For example, if an area is zoned for a planne
unit or mixed-use development, the airport operator might
purchase the rights to develop any residential or noise-
sensitive use on the parcel.
operator might purchase the rights to develop high-densit
multifamily units and to specify the maximum density that
would be permitted. Maximum structural heights could a12
be specified.
Alternately, the airport il
8 The price of development rights is determined by
calculating the difference in the resource and commodity
value of undeveloped land, or the difference in the valui
of the land if it were developed with one use versus the
uses that would be prohibited.
The main problem with development rights acquisition is
the cost, which can range from 40% to 80% of the apprais
property value.
appraised value, outright acquisition in fee simple may
As the cost approaches 50% to 60% of
I more appropriate.
Evaluation: Although there is a significant amount
open land surrounding the Airport, it is currently zoned
for compatible uses. Therefore, this option is not I required .
DRAFT (6/t
s
I
t
I
le
I
I
1
I:
8
8
I
I
1
9. Establish a transfer of development rights program.
Description: Transfer of development rights (TDR)
involves separate ownership and use of the various rights
associated with a parcel of real estate. Under TDR, some
of the development rights on the property are transferred
(instead of acquired and never used) to another location
where they may be used to intensify allowable develop-
ment. For example, lands within an area affected by
aircraft noise could be kept in open space or agricultur;
uses, and development rights for residential or other USE
could be transferred to locations outside the area affect
by noise. The value of the development rights is usual11
determined according to the same methodology employed to
determine the value of development rights that are acqui.
but not used. In some instances, a landowner may even bi
able to transfer the rights from one of his propertie3 tc
another with no purchase necessary.
I
8
1
In an area affected by aircraft noise, an airport operat
could purchase the development rights and then resell th
to a property owner in a predesignated area where the
rights can be applied.
planning agency could act as a "middleman" or broker.
Instead of buying the rights, the airport operator or
planning agency would identify a seller and a buyer who
would conduct the transaction directly.
I
Or the airport operator or local
1
DRAFT (6/(
E
I.
‘r
f
#
I
I
1
I
0
t
E
I
I
il
The use of TDR has been limited; in the United States, th
primary application has been to encourage historical
preservation or agricultural use.
also be tied closely to local plans, and areas where the
transferred rights can be applied are usually specified i
order to reduce the effects of increased density or builc
ing heights in an area otherwise planned or zoned for a
lower intensity use. In an airport environs, TDR would k
most applicable in areas where agricultural or rural lanc
have a high potential for urbanization, especially if tht
have been rezoned for a more intensive use.
Implementation must
I
1
Evaluation: TDR can be complicated and time consumii
to administer and works best in locales where the progra
is contained within a single governmental jurisdiction.
To be successful, TDR also requires that there be a high
demand for property owners to transfer the development
rights from one parcel to another, or that there be a hi
demand for the purchase of those rights by other
developers elsewhere in the ccmunity.
I;
The environs of the Airport lie in several political
jurisdictions, and considerable land is available for
development. Therefore, TDR would not be a successful
option to ensure land use compatibility.
t
DRAFT (6/(
I
I
I
1
1
8
1
I
1
8
b
#
t
1:
1
10. Change zoning. yr Description: Zoning changes in undeveloped areas
exposed to high levels of aircraft noise are intended to
(1) prohibit future incompatible land uses, or (2) restri
noise-sensitive land uses to specified building or popul2
tion densities. The second step might require that the
maximum allowable concentration of employees, customers,
or persons in public assembly be specified in the zoning
ordinance.
It is more difficult to change zoning in developed areas
than in undeveloped areas, but such changes may effec-
tively preclude or restrict future incompatible uses. F
instance, a residential area may be rezoned for a less
sensitive land use, with the stipulation that the restri
tion is waived until such time as the nonconforming
dwelling units cease to exist for any reason. Rezoning
would preclude the construction of replacement dwelling
units, so that, eventually, the area could be redevelope
d
r into compatible use.
Zoning can and should be used constructively to increast
the value and productivity of land within noise-affectec
areas. The zoning plan must clearly identify reasonablt
present and future needs of the community and the airpo I
DRAFT (6/(
1
I
E
1
#
t
t
I
\1
1
I
8
1
I
1
1
Zoning can also be used to prohibit facilities that may
hazardous to aircraft operations, such as petroleum stor
age or industrial facilities that produce concentrations
of dust or smoke.
v
Within many airport environs, communities may have pyram
dal or cumulative zoning that allows all higher land use
thus permitting development that may be incompatible. I
such cases, it is necessary to prepare and adopt new or
additional zoning regulations that clearly specify the
uses permitted to the exclusion of all other uses in
defined zones or districts.
exceptions can also permit development that may be
incompatible.
The granting of variances o
Because of the relative impermanence of zoning regulatic
some form of continuous monitoring is necessary to precl
the encroachment of incompatible development in undevelc
noise-sensitive areas. Zoning that achieves compatibili
is subject to continual pressure for change from those b
seek urban expansion and those who might profit from SUC
change.
I
When developing a zoning ordinance, it may also be
possible to adopt a height/noise/safety overlay zone. I
DRAFT (6/f
I
I.
1
1
lr
t s
I
jl
R
8
I
1
I
I
1
These types of overlays are intended to (1) ensure
aircraft safety by specifying maximum height limits for
structures, (2) restrict noise-sensitive land uses in
areas with high levels of noise exposure, and (3) provide
safety areas under the approaches to each runway. 1
The primary purpose of height restriction ordinances is t
enhance aircraft safety by controlling the location and
height of trees, towers, poles, buildings, and smokestack
in the vicinity of an airport. The objective is to assur
that entire runway lengths are available for use and that
instrument landing systems are not restricted. Height
restrictions around airports are determined by FAR
Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace."
Noise-compatible zones can be determined using aircraft
noise exposure maps based on existing and future levels (
aircraft operations. Such inforlLlation can be displayed
a map by noise contour or grid cell lines to form noise
zones. By overlaying the map with height reqtriction
zones, a combined height/noise overlay is created. Safe
areas off the ends of all runways, where all forms of
development are severely restricted, are then added to t
overlay. The height/noise/safety overlay is a useful tc
for determining conforming and nonconforming land uses,
1
1
DRAFT (6/r
I
I
t
I
1
t
i. I s
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
and it can be used in conjunction with the zoning remedie
described previously. There are such height restriction
ordinances for the area immediately surrounding the
Airport.
1
Evaluation: It is recommended that all noise-
sensitive uses inside the current or future CNEL 65 area
be zoned as compatible use or that adequate noise
insulation be required. This includes areas zoned for
residential use 3,000 feet southwest of the Airport. li
11. Require soundproofing of new noise-sensitive structures.
Description: Soundproofing standards for new
structures can be established to ensure the use of sound-
attenuating construction techniques in areas subject to
moderately high levels of noise. When incorporated in
building codes, such standards can provide a relatively
satisfactory method of achieving land use compatibility
without unduly restricting development in communities th,
have limited areas available for development. The gener<
standard is to achieve an interior maximum noise level o
CNEL 45 from exterior noise sources (such as aircraft
operations) when windows are partially open.
I
I
DRAFT (6/6
4
CJ
t
I
t
I
I
f
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
Modification of building codes to include acoustical
treatment has been considered where local conditions
indicate that substantial gains in the overall living
environment would result. Although acoustical treatment
does not eliminate noise, it can improve the indoor envi-
ronment, and it may be very useful for commercial and
industrial facilities. Where there is a considerable
amount of outdoor activity during much of the year, acous
tical treatment is less effective as a noise abatement
measure, but it does assist efforts to conserve energy.
I
1
Evaluation: A portion of the area within the future
CNEL 65 contour is planned and zoned for residential use:
In the event that the local jurisdictions find rezoning (
the property to compatible uses as recommended in Option
infeasible, soundproofing of any new residential or othe
noise-sensitive use should be required as a condition oE
approval of development.
I
12. Require the granting of avigation easements for all futt development in areas exposed to high lebels of aircraft noise.
- Description: As part of the buildinc, permit or sub-
division process, avigation easements (see Noise Mitiga
Option 2) can be required to be granted to the airport
operator as a condition of approval. I
DRAFT (6/
I
f
‘I
I
It
R
I
T
0
I
.I
1
1
I
I
4
Modifications of subdivision regulations can require that
transmission of sound from exterior sources be minimized
in new development.
subdivision regulations could require the granting of
avigation easements for new development proposed within
the airport environs.
To protect an airport operator,
Evaluation: As with Option 11, if new noise-sensitiy
development is permitted in areas of CNEL 65 or greater,
the granting of an avigation easement to the County shou:
be required as a condition of approval.
1
13. Require fair disclosure.
Description: Fair disclosure ordinances have been 1 enacted by many jurisdictions affected by airport noise.
The prospective buyer or lessee of residential property
made fully aware of the sound levels expected at the
location and of any locally adopted requirements for sou
insulation. The effectiveness of such an ordinance
normally depends on the willingness of the community to
enforce it. In addition, the seller must be willing to
bear the financial cost, and penalties can be attached j
noncompliance.
I
DRAFT (6/
I
1
I
.It
?
t
1
It
8
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
Evaluation: The State of California has a 8 comprehensive fair disclosure requirement for the sale of
all properties. The City of Carlsbad should ensure that
for all properties in areas of CNEL 65 or greater the
aircraft noise levels are included in the fair disclosure
statement.
14. Institute tax incentives.
Description: Tax incentives are a means of allocatir
noise reduction costs equitably. Such incentives can be
used to induce present and future property owners to com-
ply with performance standards for noise relief containei
in the housing and building codes. Lowered property tax
can provide a form of compensation to owners of property
subjected to aircraft noise. Tax policy can also dis-
courage the conversion of facilitips, such as golf cours
or agricultural facilities, to more intensive uses by
offering preferential tax treatment for compatible land
uses.
!a
Tax incentives are worthwhile in areas where an open spi
use, such as agriculture, is being taxed at a rate com-
puted for a "higher and better" use. Because of the tal
burden, the owner is often persuaded to sell the land fc
urban development. As an incentive to retain the land 8
DRAFT (6,'
I
!!
E
d
1
I
I
lt
4
I
I
1
1
I
open space use, taxes could be lowered so that the owner
would have less reason to sell. I
Evaluation: A large area to the west of the Airport
is exposed to aircraft noise levels of CNEL 65 or greater
and is currently in agricultural use. The general plan
for the City of Carlsbad indicates that the agricultural
use is to remain; the current agricultural operator has
placed most of the land in an agricultural preserve under
the Williamson Act. The agricultural operator should be
encouraged to keep the land in an agricultural preserve.
This would reduce potential future pressure to convert ti
land to some other use if property taxes become
burdensome. The land not in the agricultural preserve i:
e
1 planned for compatible use.
15. Encourage the continuan-e of FHA mortgage insurance policies and practices. I Description: Continue FHA mortgage insurance polici
and practices that involve the denial of insurance for
incompatible development adjacent to airports. The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a
the Veterans Administration (VA) generally do not insure
mortgages for new residential construction in areas
exposed to noise of CNEL 65+.
I
DRAFT (6/1
I
I
I
E
8
J
I
I
1
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
Evaluation: HUD already has established guidelines
regarding the acceptability of residential development in
noise areas. These guidelines generally conform to local
policies for the location of residential development in
noise areas and would not necessarily provide any added
benefit in the environs of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Furthermore, because the area predicted to be exposed to
high levels of aircraft noise is small and, for the most
part, is zoned for compatible uses, any extension of
existing federal mortgage insurance policies would not be
r equi red .
i
DRAFT (6/1
I
II
I
I Appendix B
8 [TO COME] PUBLIC COORDINATION MATERIAL
I
I
I
R
J
I
I
I
I
I
1
E
1
1
I
1
I
1 Appendix C
li [TO COME] PUBLIC COMMENT
1c
8
I
1 a
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I