Laserfiche WebLink
3.f DraftfALUCF/Compatibili4/Factorf Mapsf andf Policiesf <br /> 9.A. - Page 97 <br /> 2! Distracting lights that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to San Carlos Airport for <br /> airport identification lighting,runway edge lighting,runway end identification lighting, or <br /> runway approach lighting; <br /> 3! Sources of dust,water vapor, or smoke that may impair the vision of pilots making <br /> approaches to San Carlos Airport; <br /> 4! Sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of <br /> unstable air that generate turbulence within the flight path; <br /> 5! Sources of electrical interference with aircraft or air traffic control communications or <br /> navigation equipment, including radar; and <br /> 6! Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife as identified in FAA rules, <br /> regulations, and guidelines including,but not limited to,FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste <br /> Disposal Sites On or Near Airports, and Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B,Hazardous <br /> Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. Land uses with the possibility of attracting <br /> hazardous wildlife include landfills and certain recreational or agricultural uses that attract <br /> large flocks of birds. Exceptions to this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other <br /> environmental mitigation projects required by ordinance, statute, court order, or Record of <br /> Decision issued by a federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act. <br /> Due to their propensity to generate smoke, steam, and other visual and physical hazards to aircraft <br /> in flight,power plants should be avoided in the Area B of the Airport Influence Area. However, <br /> given the varying types of power plants(i.e.,natural gas,thermal, solar farms, etc.),proposed <br /> land uses of this type should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with <br /> applicable FAA criteria and the policies set forth in this ALUCP. <br /> 3.2.5 Overflight <br /> Experience at many airports has shown that noise-related concerns do not stop at the boundary of <br /> the outermost mapped CNEL contour. Instead, many people are sensitive to the frequent presence <br /> of aircraft overhead even at low noise levels. These reactions can mostly be expressed in the form <br /> of annoyance. <br /> At many airports,particularly air carrier airports or busy general aviation airports,complaints <br /> often come from locations beyond any of the defined noise contours. The basis for such <br /> complaints may be a desire and expectation that outside noise sources not be intrusive—or, in <br /> some circumstances,not even distinctly audible—above the quiet,natural background noise <br /> level. Elsewhere, especially in locations beneath the traffic patterns of general aviation airports, a <br /> fear factor also contributes to some individuals' sensitivity to overflight. <br /> While these impacts may be important community concerns,the question of importance here is <br /> whether any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impact/concern. <br /> Commonly,when overflight impacts are discussed in a community,the focus is on the <br /> modification of flight routes. Indeed, some might argue that overflight should be addressed solely <br /> through the aviation side of the equation—not only flight route changes,but other modifications <br /> to where,when, and how aircraft are operated. ALUCs are particularly limited in their ability to <br /> SanfCarlosfAirportV 3-32 ESAfAirportsf/130753f <br /> ALUCPfWhitefPape/ Junef2014f <br />