Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11101987 - 2.7 2-007 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS- DIRECTOR DATE: November 10, 1987 SUBJECT: Airport Noise Issues Specific Requests or Recommendation s .8 Background 8 Justification RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACCEPT reports 'attached from the Aviation Advisory Committee and the Public Works Department. FINANCIAL IMPACT: . None REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: On June 2, 1987 the Board of Supervisors directed the Aviation Advisory Committee and the Manager of Airports to conduct airport noise meetings with residents living around Buchanan Field Airport and hold these meetings in the local communities. The Board further directed the Aviation Advisory Committee and the Manager of Airports to explain why noise complaints were up at Buchanan Field. The first report is a discussion of these issues by the Aviation Advisory Committee. The second report is from J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director, on the issues of why noise complaints are up.. In both of the attached reports there is considerable discussion, not only about 'why the complaints are up, but what is being done by the airport staff and the Aviation Advisory Committee to mitigate to the greatest extent possible. Continued on attachment: yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s): Action of Board on: November 10, 1987 Approved as Recommended X Other X Also, the Board REQUESTED the Public Works Director and County Counsel to report to the Board on Decenber 1, 1987, on the feasibility of amending State Law to impose better land use controls in the vicinity of an airport. Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED X Unanimous (Absent — — — ) ON TIME MINUTES. OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ayes: Noes: ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: _ Abstain: _ Attested Noveinber 10, 1987 Phil Batchelor Orig. Div.: Public Works (AP) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator - cc: County Administrator Aviation Advisory Committee County Counsel By BO:10.t11 Deputy ClerkjV sf CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVIATION •ADVISORY COMMITTEE 171 John 'Glenn Drive Concord, CA 94520-5606 (415) 685-0722 DATE: October 6, 1987 TO: Board -of Supervisors6P� FROM: Aviation Advisory Committee - Barry R. Basse, Chairman SUBJECT: Report to the Hoard -Airport Noise Issues On June 2, 1987 the Board of Supervisors directed the AAC and the Manager of Airports to do the following: 1-) .Conduct airport noise meetings with the • resi-dents living around .' Buchanan Field. and hold those meetings in the local communities.: 2) Explain why noise complaints are up at Buchanan Field. 3)' Develop a Noise Ordinance •fox% Buchanan Field. -AIRPORT NOISE MEETINGS: .During. July 19.8.7• spec Lal:-AAC­me.et1n4-s .-we.re.•he,ld . with the •residents"-of''.Concoid '•and. Pleasant -Hill: 'Both meetings weie.•held,..-. in :the evening, in the local communities, and were very well publicized to 'assure the best opportunity for public attendance and response . The master plan/part. 150 noise study consultants were present and had on display both general aviation and commercial traffic flight track maps . f-or Buchanan Field. Public ; test imony was. taken and' specific •.additional areas of aircraft over flight concerns were marked on 'the maps. The consultant :has revised the flight track maps to incorporate this input. WHY ARE NOISE COMPLAINTS UP: ----------------- .There . is no. one answer. to this que�stiori. The. AAC.'and airport management have' been working very hard for' many' years to 'reduce Airport Noise Issues cont. the noise levels at Buchanan Field and for the most part these efforts have been .ve•ry successful . As -has been shown by every noise study done in the .past few years, the 60 and 65• CNEL''noise contours for Buchanan Field continue to shrink. The flight operations activity level at the airport also continues to shrink. Airport operations are down dramatically from the high in 1978 and are currently running at about a 1965 rate. The mix of aircraft currently operating from the airport include many new quiet technology aircraft and the overall fleet is quieter than In the past. Yet our noise complaints are up over 400% from 1985 levels. The attached "Noise Abatement Report" from the public works director and the manager of , airports contains a comprehensive list of noise' abatement actions, taken before and after the- sun valley- 'accident, that have been implemented by the AAC and airport staff. The AAC agrees completely with this report and the conclusions it reaches. The AAC recommends that members of the Board study the report carefully as it covers the last few years of noise complaint activity in a historical fashion. It is very' true that much of the -noise- complaint activity now being experienced is due''to both dramatically heightened citizen awareness and exploitive media attention being given to the ' negative aspects of aviation. The direct -result is much higher visibility for the airport. '. The AAC feels that these high levels of publ-ic awareness -and. airport visibility are not; likely to diminish. Current Congressional hearings -on .thi.s. very subject confirm nationally the .magnitude of reactions- we .are experiencing locally. : The AAC feels 'strongly that the county and communities adjacent' ' to Buchanan Field must begin ' to exercise more prudent' use of : . :their:• zoning- powers. as -,they relatd• .to future.-deve1opmerxt..:axound:-'-. ' . . t'he. airpo'rt..'.. •The -recent County General P.lan...amendment that allows high density .residential development in. the Pacheco area is a good example of what is happening in the' county that results in additional noise complaints. The county must begin to coordinate among its various departments and agencies on issues of .developmerit near the. airport. The quality of life for future res'i.de.nt�s 'arkd.. the •continued . utility, of the airport hang in the- bala.nce. It is clear"to' .t'he' AAC that the .community development . department and' the- county'.planning- commission have little . knowledge of, or concern for, the public noise issues around Buchanan Field. - This lack of concern and coordination with the ALUC and AAC -by these agencies before making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors is 'producing an unnecessary disservice to the Board and the residents.-of this county. • It is the AAC's. opinion that the Board of- Supervisors should direct the community' development depar.tment and the county plarining commission to 2 . 1 Airport Noise Issues cont. refer all projects and general plan amendments that fall within the ALUC's' sphere of. influence to the ALUC and. the .AAC '.for . comment -before sending their recommendations -to the Board. This should be a matter of county policy. It is further felt that once the county has established a policy for development around the airport it will then set a positive example for Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Martinez to' follow. Visual noise, or soft noise, is a major problem at Buchanan Field. The vast majority of the noise complaints received are well outside of the airport 60 CNEL noise contour line. The AAC has asked the Board to commission a new master plan and along with it an extensive FAR part 150 noise study. The AAC has asked the consultant to develop a standard for visual, or soft, noise. . This 'is a very difficult assignment and the Board should be aware that the noise problems we are . experiencing' are common nation- wide. When the FAR part 150 noise study for Buchanan Field is complete in March of 1988, it will be only the 7th to be done in California and only about the 20th in the nation. Most airports now .have substantial community noise problems well outside their 'hard noise 65 CN.EL 'contours . The recent DSM Development. debate • contained an argument by the developer 's consultant. that since their project was outside the 60 CNEL contour, there was not a noise problem and therefore the ALUC and the' AAC were opposing the project on emotional grounds rather than rules'.or .regu•lations.. The position of -the ALUC .and the -AAC • that high density multi-family residential development. 1's not appropriate under or near the airport traffic patterns .is taken after . careful• evaluation' of hundreds of.•Ver-ifted noise complaints' and numerous' public 'testimony meetings -held. by '"the' AAC at -the direction o.f ' the Board 'of. Supe•rvi-sors. ' . I.f.•currently;. as...was argued.,.by D�&M�and..appa pntly :accepted by the Board-, • ahy''developzaent 'up to the : 60--CNEL.. contour .Line acceptable and• 'd•oes not •.constitute=..a noise problem•,. then the AAC• must ask the Board if they are now. d.irecting the AAC and airport staff to legitimately ignore all noise complaints outside the . contour line . Otherwise, the AAC feels that it is being placed in an untenable position on this issue. NOISE ORDINANCE: In August of 1986 the AAG sent to• the Board a recommended noise ordinance for' Buchanan Field Airport', after much work by airport .staff, • a. great deal of study .by the AAC., and input from. a noted . . consultant.- in -the -field. ' As- you may recall •the FAA rejected that ordnance on' th'e grounds that we ,did net 'have' sufficient. . 3 Airport Noise Issues cont. documentation to support our restrictions and position, Indicating that an -FAR Part. 150 noise study would constitute . sufficient documentation. The 'AAC. then recommended- to the Board that such a study be incorporated with the new airport master plan. We are currently about midway through this study. The AAC asked FAA representatives to attend our August 1987 meeting to review their procedures for adopting a noise ordinance. Our 150 noise study consultant was also present to ask questions and give a progress report to both the AAC and the FAA. The AAC feels that when the 150 noise study is complete and the FAA is presented with our new noise ordinance to review, we will receive a prompt response. The Board- has asked the AAC to implement noise abatement action Items as soon as sufficient data is available -during the .study. The AAC has asked the consultant to take all of the Buchanan Field flight tracks and overlay them on one 8 1/2 X 11 sheet for distribution to all agencies that deal with development around the airport. This has been completed and is now being printed. The AAC has established a Noise Task Force to meet with- and. aid the - master plan/150- noise study consultants.: Two meetings of this group have been held with'approxima.tely five more scheduled. The consultants are free to call this group together any time . they need community input. RECOMMENDATIONS: : .1) The Board of Supervisors •should direct, the community devel.opmen.t department.'and' the 'county planning- commission to :re+fer' a.11: priojects�: zoning.::ctiange :proposals. and general plan amendment, proposals ':that' fall•' within the.-ALUgI s' sphere o.f. influence to the AWC: and the A►AC for ' comment -prior to making their recommendations- to- the Board. 2) The Board of Supervisors should. take a leadership role in development planning around the airport . This means assuring consistent coordination among all the. agencies having .planning and action responsibilities within the ALUC sphere of .. .. ' influence . 3) The Board must acknowledge that- there. is a very real 'aviation noise impact on residents living'-outside the hard noise contours of the airport. The newly developed composite flight track map is a 'good indicator .of where problem areas have -and ' can occur•. It.. As '-the AAC!.s: position that the Board should . eke-rci-se , gre'at- caution• when considering future residential 4 Airport Noise Issues cont. development under or near these. flight tracks. The quality of . life -of residents who live" and .work around the airport is very important to •the long term utility of the airport. 4 ) Residential development that is allowed within the ALUC sphere of influence should have the following conditions imposed as requirements for approval: A) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - advising prospective buyers that the property is located near an airport and subject to aircraft over flights. B) AVIGATION EASEMENT - be 'entered on the deed for the property. C) TITLE 25 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - builder must be required to comply with the requirements of Title 25 even though the subject development may fall outside of the airport hard noise contour. This would require an acoustical .study of the project and 45 dba interior noise levels. 5 , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Public. liorks Department '155 Glacier Drive - Martinez, CA . 94553. . October 1987 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Noise Abatement Report The. Board of Supervisors ha-s asked the Aviation Advisory. Committee-and the Manager of Airports to prepare a report as to 'the reasons that noise complaints are up. Historically, the Aviation Advisory Committee has worked as a community compatibility and noise abatement committee as one of its first goals. Prior to December 23, 1985, a significant list of noise abatement efforts had been implemented. These include: 1. Raised traffic pattern altitude from 800 to. 1,000 feet 'for small aircraft and from .1,200 feet td- 1,500 -feet-- for large :aircraft.. 2. Established the use of -Runway 32R as the noise abatement preferential runway and worked with the FAA Control ..Tower to encourage.operators of noisier aircraft to depart on 32R. 3.- Established a -series of preferential traffic patterns specifically designed-to avoid .noise sensitive areas.- ' . 4. Establ'i-shed 'an airport. newsletter that specifically incl'uded .nois.e abatement s.ubjects: This newsletter ' has developed into- -a distni-bution of a,pproximatel-y- 1',000 -interested-.parties- and airport 'users •5. Periodically met with pilot groups .and flying' elubs to advise them of noise problems. 6. Met regularly with FBO administrators• to .enlist the help -of their instructors :and'•pilots .relat ive to noise abatement. 7.- - '.Establ i-shed isppecial noise abatement traffic' patterns for helicopters. 8. Made. onsite observations. of.noise sensitive areas- relative to the type of -aircraft responsible for noise complaints and the manner in which they are. flown:' 9.-. PuPlished •in Federal Airports Facilities .Directory "Noise sensitive area, practice noise abatement (fly quiet) procedures." •10: Prohibited touch and go landings between the hours. of 10':00 p:m.' and -6:00 a.m. 11. Have requested VASI's for Runway- 32L. 12. Raised all VASI 's to maximum angle of descent. 13. Established unofficial upper limit of 850 based aircraft for' Buchanan Field Airport. 14. Includes noise abatement discussions as a monthly topic at all AAC meetings. Since the accident at Sun Valley Mall , a number of other steps in activities relative to community compatibility have been initiated. These include: 1. Initiated a safety study by' Flight Safety Institute of Sacramento. 2. Put a new Ordinance in place which includes -a variety of noise abatement and safety issues. 3. Commissioned extensive noise and environmental studies. . Mestre Greve. Associates. prepared in-depth noise .studies for the ajrpor.t in anticipation of - Pacific Southwest Airl.ines . service.• McClintock, Becker.& Associates did a:'major environmental 'investi- gation relative to this proposed service. . 4. Established special noise. 'abateTent 'traffic patterns ..for Pacific. Southwest -Airlines. ' 5.. .'...Initiated..a...comprehensive FAVRart-150 Noise 'Study':whi'ch .'involves . the• neighboring communities in examinir'g the operation' of Buchanan Field to' find viable. solutions to noise and commu'n'i.ty compatibility. Problems: 6. I'nitia•ted- a 'compl"ete .airport .Faster Plan. study to evaluate. -the- potential land •uses'on Buchanan Field• Airport.- 7. 'Ini.tiated a full. - EIk on the Master 'Plan to complement the 150 Noise Study and further evaluate the airport' s community compatibil.i-ty for. now -and the.•near- future.: '. 8 •'Subst•ant.ia11y ex'paAd:ed -.t1Te '.airport's' 'nroise• monitoring' 'program... ; The airport monitors up' to 8. hours/day at 'locations specifically requested by the airport noise consultants, as well' -as at random locations in. 'noise sdnsit-ive neighborhoods. This. monitoring is done utilizing •an airport employee on'. the site identifying all aircraft that trigger. the nois.e monitor. 9. TFe airport h'as'. increased its programof inviting people •impacted -to the airport"to inform them of safety' programs and efforts being made to minimize the impact of the airport on the surrounding community. 3 . 10.' The airport is-analyiing monthly obmplaints in considerable detail to evaluate .possible patterns that 'wily lead to corrective measures. 11. The airport conducted a meeting with all bay area helicopter operators, including military, relative to noise problems in the surrounding area. The result of this meeting included new -transient helicopter traffic patterns which kept helicopters over the nonpopulated areas. Further, agreement was reached for maintaining altitudes of 1 ,000 feet or greater over all residential areas in central Contra Costa County. 12. The airport staff has responded in writing to 1,000 citizen complaints. The airport has written .to approximately 100 pilots that have caused noise complaints and talked to approiiimately..200 additional pilots. * The airport is dedicating approximately 40- 50 hours per week in staff time to noise issues' including time spent in the field monitoring aircraft noise. 13. Additional environmental and noise studies have been completed relative to an airport Access Plan to limit scheduled airline service from Buchanan Field Airport. 14. . Implemented an Interim 'Ai'rline' - Access 'Plan which wily limit .the number of scheduled -aircraft that -can operate from Buchanan Field Airport until such time. as: the master plan and the FAR - Part 150 Noise Study are completed. 15. -.'Required additional noise studies of Cal West Airlines 'to ev.a:luate their.. proposed scheduled -service. between. the hours o.f 6.:00 a.m.: .and 1:00.'a.m.. There-'appears to be a. number of 'factors involved in 'the dramatic increase in -noise. comp.T•aints at :Buchanan.-Fi-eld Airpor.t. . These -include::. . 1. ' '•'The :orig'inaI • 'Pa-c-i-fic. ' Southwest.':Aiirlines •(PSA') : applicatfon' -fort- service at -.Buchanan •Fi.el-d -Airport 'occurred in Octo.her .and November, 1985. Shortly thereafter, an' organized citizens group opposed PSA.serv-ice.' Once this information became a- publi-c issue, the complaints began increasing in November and December. 2. On December 23 ' 1985• an 'aircraft' crashed into Sun Valley Mall Complaints .increased' by approximately threefold through the month of May. 3. In .May, 1986. PSA began scheduled service out of. Buchanan Field Airport: Noise complaints again increased- by approximately three times•.. Approximately 20% of the total complaints were directed -against Pacific Southwest Airlines. 4 4. • ' During. this entire time period, the airport. was- experiencing an extremely high level of visibility in the news media. There was continuing discussion regarding the Mall accident, as well as articles relating to PSA. The citizens opposing PSA service continued to be quite active. 5. The Aviation Advisory Committee and others actively solicited input from citizens concerned about airport activities. The AAC held a large number of meetings with pilot and citizen groups relative to airport operations. This developed a substantially heightened awareness of the airport and its activities. 6. Aircraft operations by PSA have been substantially as expected prior to startup. ' During all public meetings, the AAC, the airport staff and the consultants estimated that PSA would operate over -Pleasant Hill (our •most sensitive community) between 5% and: 10%-of' the time according to 'the wind data we had available. PSA to date has operated over Pleasant Hill approximately 5.6% of the time. During the PSA startup investigations, it was assumed that the real issue for PSA was that of noise. After PSA actually -began service, it . became apparent that: the visual.'. impact of PSA over residential areas is more upsetting to some 'of the citiiens than the noise level. The PSA landings • generate more complaints. than ' . - take'offs. 7. Because .of- the. substantia•l.l-y -.increased- statistical 'analysis being maintained- by the airport, it wa's found. that. specific increases in- . ..complaints occur soon' after any major aircraft accident which -makes high ' level news media coverage..'- 'This .'indluded the E1 ' Ce.rrftos' crash; the 'mid'-air .crash over the -Grand Canyon; and the . mid-air collision near Oakland. • ''8:. : 'Upon deve.lopmerit of the lnterirti "Airline Access Plan;. a new .citizens .group :was. formed.. and once 'again .the .airport became a. news media• topi-c'.. A citizens group- in Pleasant. Hill..:•was 'once .agai.n .. formed to oppose any increa'ses' in scheduled airline servic•e. ' .Once again, there were increases in complaints noted. The following conclusions have been reached by the. Manager .of Airports and the-.'Aviation Adviso.ry Committee as to -the reasons that noise complaints are up. The . following list is not necessarily. in any order of priority. 1. A -dramatica-lly heightened -awareness by citizens as to the , proximity of the..airport 'has contributed- greatly to • the increase in- noise compl-ai6ts . • -There is a very. -spe' ci fic and. 'direct relationship between the Sun Valley Mall accident and an increase . in complaints... There is .also a direct. relationship between. the advent of 'PSA• startup.-add. complaints. We have also tracked some pei^iodic .increases'.:in -complaints to news .media aviation ev.e'nts'. 2. The airport has several. more employees than it did two years ago. ' 5 As -a result of getting '•PSA service, the airport has' increased its staffing to where there is no less than .two people on duty, seven days per 'week; .6:00 a.m. Ao 10:00 p.m. , and one- person on duty from 10:00' p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 'Because ' of this higher level of staffing, the airport is able to handle a much larger number of direct calls. The airport also is able to' unload the recorder several times during the day. Once the information is transferred either from the direct complaint. or from the recorder, it gets appropriate followup. 3. The airport has developed a much improved followup system and .recordkeeping program since January of 1986. All of the data is now in the airport computer system and our internal followup procedures have been expanded. An additional change 'that has occurred is that we took all noise complaints away from the Control Tower. The airport requested that all complaints be forwarded to the airport office for processing. The airport further asked that all residents contact the ai.rport and that the Tower refer all calls to - the airport if they should receive them. Prior to doing ''this the Tower complaints were not recorded as separate complaint items. 4. The airport' currently logs all. compla.i.nts even if they are not totally complete. Prior to' 1986 the airport .only logged those complaints where people. wanted to make "formal complaints". At .that time the airport always. specifically asked the question and frequently .'after .discussing- -the' -Issue of the- 'overflight, . many citizens decided that -they did not care to pursue the matter any -further. The ,a.i rport's :current .policy .i s to. log all call-s. 'and -fill out'-a' form:. The. only •case where the airpo.rt•'will not .treat a complain ' as legitimate. is where thie caller will not identify himself. Cur�^ently- between'15:.and .20X of 'All call s received are cal l:s: .which . have no relationship' to Bu.c:hana.h. Field Aarpo.rt: These 'incluoe calls from -as far away- as, Danvi ll a and - Di-scovery- Bay. It also includes calls regarding airplanes that are flying over out of Oakland or San - Franci-sco. Recently, for example, the- airport recorded eight 'complaints against the Concorde which departed . Oakland.. ' Prior to '1986 these calls . would not necessarily have been logged. 5. The' Manager of Airports and the Aviation Advisory Committee have further determined that the residential development occurring in the Pleasant Hill area directly south of Buchanan Field Airport has been significant. This' development is still continuing. Many o•f the homes are on - the hills and ridges .putting them closer to - the aircraft in .-.the traffic 'pattern . A high ' pe.rcenta-ge' of co%plaints are coming -from these new .re' sidents..• It should also be noted that• in the unincorporated areas of the County that residential encroachment has also occurred to the extent that these areas are generating new complaints. 6 6. A number of ' citizens have become somewhat pro-active in their neighborhoods in generating noise .complaints whenever aircraft pass over their area that they find objectionable. We are able to identify these areas fairly specifically with the information contained in our computerized data base. 7. The Manager of Airports and the Aviation Advisory Committee feel that one of the most significant causes of the higher number of noise complaints is that of the extremely heightened visibility of the airport. Also over the past year to two years there has been a greatly heightened news media coverage on the negative aspects of Aviation. As to the specifics of the. local area, the airport is good news reporting and for whatever reason we are frequently in the newspapers or 'on television. •In addition, 'the Aviation Advisory Committee has. been holding various public meetings, . including public hearings on the issues of noise. In all of our public . dealings we are specifically making the issue to the citizens around the airport to call us whenever they have any kind of noise complaint. In other words, we are in fact soliciting noise complaints. The noise levels have -been shown to- be continually decreasing. Our current ongoing noise study will be showing that . it has .-'decreased due to our noise. abatement efforts even 'over the 'past'-year. . It is significantly down .from the earlier period of five to- seven years ago. In addition, the aircraft traffic levels continue to decrease out of the airport. This is not some specific to Buchanan Field Airport but- is' in line- with the trend of- all tower control- General Aviation airports.- We are currently operating at.approximately. our. 1965 air traffic level : -•.It should also be: noted that with very: few' exceptions; all airplanes 'are .fly!.ng i•n..a legal-manner and in accordance:with. Federal Or Regulations. . Whenever' we-have. reason to believe . that an aircraft is .not operating in accordance -with. Federal Air.• Regula- tions or whenever the'.caller .alleges "reckle.ss- flying".-we always refer these... inatters. .to .'the­'FAA.' HEW:sf : . NoiseRpt.t9 i