HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8904
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8904)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/13/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Presentation and recommendations regarding Aircraft Noise
Title: Presentation and recommendations for next steps regarding FAA
Initiative to Address Airplane Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San
Mateo and San Francisco Counties.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that
Council commits to regularly assign one or more Council Members to actively participate on
available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and directs staff to:
i. Request temporary noise monitoring in Palo Alto from San Francisco International
Airport (SFO); and
ii. Provide support to Palo Alto Council Members participating on available community
roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and
iii. Continue to include community impacts of aircraft in the City’s regional, state and
federal legislative priorities and engage with policy makers and associated advocacy
groups as appropriate; and
iv. Include in the above efforts Palo Alto’s continued support for:
a. Improvements to SFO’s Fly Quiet Program,
b. Adherence to the agreement to increase the altitude of aircraft over the
Peninsula whenever able,
c. Maximizing the use of the BDEGA East Arrival route to SFO when possible,
d. Maximizing sequencing under current conditions and prioritizing the application
of air traffic control technology to improve sequencing and aircraft management
to minimize community impacts, and
e. Adoption of improved metrics for airplane noise and related impacts, and
f. Greater community engagement by the FAA, San Francisco and San José airports.
Background
On June 19, 2017, the City Council voted 7-0 (Council Members Fine and Scharff were absent)
to direct staff to:
1. Obtain expert opinion on aircraft noise monitoring strategy; and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2. Meet with neighboring cities to establish a regional position on the issue of aircraft
noise; and
3. Align resources to be prepared to respond to the Federal Aviation Administration’s
(FAA) response to the reports of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and San
Francisco International Airport (SFO)/Community Roundtable.
The City of Palo Alto submitted a letter to the FAA on July 7, 2017 (Attachment A) to express its
positions in alignment with several recommendations from the Select Committee and the SFO
Roundtable.
In late July 2017, the FAA released its initial response to the Select Committee and SFO
Roundtable recommendations in the form of the “Phase Two report on the FAA Initiative to
Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties, compiled
at the requests of Representatives Farr (Panetta), Eshoo and Speier.”
On November 15, 2017, the City of Palo Alto submitted a letter to the FAA (Attachment B)
expressing its concerns about the Phase Two report and clarifying its positions on the need to
reduce the concentration of SFO arrivals using the MENLO waypoint, increase the minimum
altitude of flights in this vicinity, and reduce vectoring of flights. The letter also underscored the
positions the Select Committee had taken with regard to reverting the SERFR track to the
previous BSR track and the importance of improved noise metrics. The cities of East Palo Alto
and Menlo Park sent similar letters to the FAA in mid-November.
In late November 2017, the FAA released its “Update on the Phase Two report on the FAA
Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco
Counties, compiled at the requests of Representatives Farr (Panetta), Eshoo and Speier” (Phase
Two Update) (Attachment C).
On October 3, 2017, the San José City Council authorized the establishment of the Ad Hoc
Committee on South Flow Arrivals to explore possible solutions to address the noise impacts on
residents from certain landing configurations at Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). All
cities in Santa Clara County, and the county, were invited to participate with one vote except
San José, which has two votes. Council Member Lydia Kou represents the City of Palo Alto on
this body, which is to complete its work in 120 days. The south flow committee held meetings
on November 17, 2017 and January 26, 2018.
At the recommendation of the Select Committee and of Representatives Eshoo, Khanna and
Panetta, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has formed a separate Ad Hoc Committee
to explore building the framework for a permanent Roundtable for the South Bay (Santa Clara
and Santa Cruz Counties) regarding aircraft noise issues related to SFO and SJC. Palo Alto
Council Member Greg Scharff is one of the seven current members of the Ad Hoc Committee.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Cities Association’s Ad Hoc Committee held meetings on August 31, 2017 and January 25,
2018.
In addition, Atherton Council Member Elizabeth Lewis, in her capacity as the Chair of the SFO
Roundtable, has recently contacted the Cities Association of Santa Clara County to invite one
representative of Santa Clara County, along with one representative of Santa Cruz County, to
join the SFO Roundtable and/or explore the potential for future collaboration between the SFO
Roundtable and a future permanent South Bay Roundtable.
Discussion
With respect to item #1 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (obtain expert opinion on
aircraft noise monitoring strategy), staff has consulted experts, interested community
members, and the SFO noise office. SFO staff have confirmed that SFO will honor a previous
offer to provide temporary noise monitoring in the City of Palo Alto. Staff recommends the City
pursue this option with SFO.
With respect to item #2 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (meet with neighboring cities
to establish a regional position on the issue of aircraft noise), Palo Alto staff began reaching out
to staff of neighboring jurisdictions last summer. In addition, the mayors of Palo Alto, East Palo
Alto and Menlo Park met with residents to discuss shared perspectives, resulting in the three
cities communicating consistent messages to the FAA in November 2017. The formation of one
or more roundtable entities would provide a more effective, comprehensive and transparent
means of establishing a regional position on aircraft noise. Staff recommends that the City
continue participating collaboratively on the currently established and proposed roundtables
described above.
With respect to item #3 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (align resources to be prepared
to respond to the FAA Phase Two report), staff has reviewed the agency’s Phase Two Update
with aviation experts and interested members of the community. In the Phase Two Update, the
FAA categorizes its responses to community positions in four categories: “Addressed Concerns”,
“Feasible and Could Be Implemented in the Short Term”, “Feasible and Could Be Implemented
in the Long Term”, or “Not Endorsed”. Unfortunately, the majority of Palo Alto’s positions were
not endorsed by the FAA or, if found feasible, present limited potential relief due to the
considerable restrictions faced by a metropolitan region juggling arrivals and departures for
three large and growing international airports (SFO, SJC, and Oakland [OAK]). In fact, SJC is now
one of the fasting growing airports in the country (See Attachment G, Mercury News Article). A
brief summary of those City positions (which were adopted in support of formal positions
articulated by the Select Committee and/or the SFO Roundtable), and FAA responses provided
in its Phase Two Update is presented here in items A – G, followed by a brief discussion of
recurring themes in the report.
A. Reduce Concentration of Arrivals through MENLO Waypoint: Not Endorsed.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Palo Alto supported reducing the concentration of SFO arrivals using the MENLO
waypoint. The FAA has explained it cannot endorse this proposal because shifting
arrivals to variously proposed points to the east or north would conflict with SJC
airspace, which cannot be modified due to safety requirements for SJC.1
B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed.
Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from the south farther to
the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). The FAA has explained that the
current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD arrivals) is
already saturated with the majority (68%) of SFO’s arriving traffic, and could not
accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also
argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix,
and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by
the majority of flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3
C. Fly Higher Over the Peninsula: Not Endorsed; Addressed Concerns.
(This is an example of apparent contradictions in the Phase Two Update.)
Palo Alto supported proposals to increase the minimum altitude for flights in our vicinity
from 4,000 to 5,000 feet. In one portion of the Phase Two Update, the FAA states this
recommendation is not endorsed for safety reasons because, to fly a stabilized
approach, aircraft are subject to specific descent gradient requirements that essentially
prohibit being too high, too close to landing. According to the FAA, to stay above 5,000
feet over our area, SFO arrivals would have to travel farther away from SFO to descend
to the appropriate altitude for approach, thereby forcing them into prohibited SJC
airspace.4
However, in another section of the Phase Two Update, the FAA categorizes this matter
as an “addressed concern,” referencing the existing agreement between the SFO
Aircraft Noise Abatement Office and the FAA’s Northern California TRACON that calls for
aircraft to cross the MENLO waypoint “at 5,000 feet during visual conditions and 4,000
feet during instrument landing conditions” when able. The SFO roundtable requested
that this agreement stay in place and be followed, and the FAA states it agrees with the
Roundtable’s recommendation “to the extent feasible.”5 Staff recommends that the City
of Palo Alto advocate for adherence to this agreement.
D. Relocate Northern Arrivals from Peninsula to Bay: Concern Addressed; Feasible in
Short-Term.
(This is an example of an “addressed concern” and a “short-term feasible” solution that
presents little to no improvement from the current state.)
1 Attachment C, page 108.
2 Attachment C, page 109.
3 Attachment C, page 111.
4 Attachment C, pages 106-107.
5 Attachment C, page 88.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Palo Alto supported calls for BDEGA arrivals to be shifted from the west leg to the east
leg.
(The BDEGA arrival from the north is characterized by two options. The BDEGA West
Downwind leg brings arrivals from north of San Francisco southbound over the
Peninsula before they make an easterly U-turn into a north-facing approach over the
Bay into SFO. The BDEGA East Downwind leg brings arrivals from north of San Francisco
southeasterly over the Bay before they make a westerly U-turn to approach SFO over
the Bay. See Attachment D, Figure 1.)
The FAA classifies its answer to this proposal as an “Addressed Concern” because it
concurs with the recommendation to utilize BDEGA East when possible. In fact, the FAA
“currently routes BDEGA arrivals to the East downwind to the extent operationally
feasible.”6 However, the FAA report underscores the limitations of utilizing BDEGA East
because it shares its final approach with the highly congested DYAMD arrival from the
east. The FAA reports that folding BDEGA arrivals in with DYAMD arrivals is a challenge
not only due to DYAMD’s density of use, but also because DYAMD is constrained by OAK
airspace to the north and SJC airspace to the south, thereby limiting the ability of air
traffic controllers to vector DYAMD arrivals (to make space for BDEGA arrivals) without
creating “a ripple effecting, jeopardizing safety and resulting in delays” potentially
across all three airports (See Attachment D, Figure 2). Furthermore, the limited space in
between DYAMD arrivals that can be used for routing BDEGA arrivals on the East leg
instead of the West leg will likely continually decrease as SFO’s overall traffic counts are
expected to continually increase.7 Therefore, while this solution demonstrates a
willingness on the part of the FAA to mitigate impacts on the Peninsula, it is not likely to
produce any improvement from the current state (since it is already being utilized) and,
instead, will likely shrink in value over time as a mitigating solution – at least with
respect to daytime noise.
With respect to nighttime hours, the FAA identifies a “feasible short-term” solution as it
reports it is working to update its procedures to accommodate maximizing use of
BDEGA East from the beginning of Nose Abatement Procedure hours until 6:00AM. The
FAA commits to “continue to reinforce the use of this procedure to personnel through
training and briefings.”8 Staff recommends the City communicate its acknowledgement
of the FAA’s commitment to this short-term solution and encourage continued
exploration of other ways to maximize use of BDEGA East whenever possible.
E. Reduce Vectoring over the Peninsula: Requirements Not Endorsed; Study Feasible
Short-Term.
The City joined with others in calls for reduced vectoring of arriving flights. The FAA
insists that speed control and vectoring are tactical decisions used by air traffic
controllers to manage the sequencing of aircraft and it will not support any proposed
formal restrictions on when air traffic controllers may or may not use this “vital
6 Attachment C, page 98.
7 Attachment C, pages 71-72, 81-82.
8 Attachment C, page 98.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
component” of their tools for accomplishing their mission.9 However, the FAA “is
continuously working to improve aircraft setup and sequencing between facilities” and
agrees that the BDEGA Arrival route has light enough traffic that it is a candidate for
studying whether in-trail spacing may result in a decrease in vectoring.10 Staff
recommends the City seek opportunities to maximize the FAA’s use of in-trail spacing or
sequencing on BDEGA in the near term and, when beneficial, on additional routes in the
long term.
F. Organize Aircraft Schedules and Use Flow Management to Limit Noise: Feasible Long-
Term.
The City of Palo Alto has supported recommendations to encourage the FAA staff to
work across its divisions to minimize noise through efficient organization of aircraft
schedules and utilizing arrival descents that limit the use of speed brakes. In response to
calls for new, more effective, time-based flow management tools that allow for better
sequencing of aircraft that are vectored or held prior to final approach, the FAA has
stated it is committed to incorporating these improvements as they become available.11
Staff recommends the City continue to advocate for such solutions to be implemented
by the FAA as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
G. Develop Improved Metrics for Airplane Noise: “Not FAA’s Action”
The City of Palo Alto has supported recommendations by the Select Committee calling
for Congressional action to direct the FAA to adopt supplemental metrics that better
characterize the true impact of aircraft on people on the ground. Although the adoption
of new metrics would fall under the purview of the FAA, the FAA’s Phase Two Update
declined to speak to this policy recommendation; apparently because the
recommendation’s phrasing is, technically, directed to the legislative branch of the
federal government.
The City of Palo Alto, through its legislative advocacy team in Washington, D.C., has
been monitoring the progress of FAA reauthorization legislation. As reported to the
Policy & Services Committee during its discussion of legislative priorities on November
14, 2017, while the Senate FAA reauthorization bill does not address aircraft noise and
community engagement, the House FAA reauthorization bill includes several provisions
related to noise and community engagement. These include a requirement for the FAA
to conduct a review of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects
on communities around airports, which would subsequently inform future
recommendations for revising the FAA’s land use compatibility guidelines (See
attachment E).
Staff recommends the City continue to advocate for improved noise metrics and other
solutions to negative impacts of aircraft, including greater FAA community engagement.
9 Attachment C, page 110.
10 Attachment C, page 97.
11 Attachment C, page 101.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
The FAA’s Phase Two Update addresses several community concerns by citing its request that
SFO update its Fly Quiet Program. Staff recommends the City partner with other jurisdictions,
including through community roundtables, to work with SFO in developing detailed
improvements as part of its update to its Fly Quiet Program.
Throughout the Phase Two Update, the FAA makes clear that safety considerations are
paramount; City staff concurs.
Several times in the Phase Two Update, the FAA reiterates it will not support solutions that
result in shifting the problem of noise from one community to another. It also repeatedly
identifies increased flying distance as an unacceptable outcome of many community-proposed
solutions that conflict with the economic and environmental benefits and operational
efficiencies gained from shorter flying distances. In addition, it repeatedly points to the
anticipated inevitability of increased congestion as airports increase and expand their flight
operations. The Phase Two Update explicitly states it will not move forward on certain
technically feasible recommendations “until issues of congestion, noise shifting and flying
distance have been addressed with the airline stakeholders and the affected communities by
the Select Committee and/or SFO Roundtable.”12 While the Select Committee has disbanded,
the South Bay Roundtable envisioned by the Cities Association would likely be viewed as an
appropriate surrogate for this function in partnership with the SFO Roundtable.
The City of Palo Alto is one of over 100 municipalities in the Bay Area. The ability of any single
community of 67,000 to influence the complex operations of a federal agency serving a region
of 8 million people is, by definition, limited. In addition, the impacts of airplane noise must be
considered amid the often competing interests of our neighboring jurisdictions, the flying
public, airline industry priorities, airport operational requirements, broader economic and
environmental impacts and, above all else, safety. The successful navigation of these public
interest challenges requires effective collaboration. Staff strongly recommends the City
continue to seek cooperative opportunities to team with neighboring jurisdictions through
community roundtables and similar partnerships to most effectively address the community
impacts of aircraft operations.
Palo Alto’s Representative Anna Eshoo, as well as Representatives Khanna, Panetta and Speier,
have expressed support for aircraft noise solutions. In addition, Congresswoman Eshoo joined
with other Members of Congress to form the Quiet Skies Caucus in Congress to support policy
solutions to address airplane noise. Staff recommends the City continue to express appreciation
to Congresswoman Eshoo and the rest of the region’s Congressional delegation for their
continued support on these issues. Staff also recommends the City continue partnering with
national organizations like the National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E.) (see Attachment F) to advocate at the federal level for improved noise metrics,
community engagement, and other solutions to the negative impacts of aircraft operations.
Attachments:
12 Attachment C, page 103
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A: 2017-07-07 Mayor's Letter to FAA
Attachment B: Letter to FAA_11_15_17
Attachment C: FAA Phase Two Update
Attachment D: Maps
Attachment E: VanScoyoc
Attachment F: Noise
Attachment G Mercury News Article
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20024
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Subject: City of Palo Alto Response to FAA Initiative Phase Two Report Issued July 2017
Dear Administrator Huerta:
On behalf of the Palo Alto City Council and further to our letter dated July 7, 2017, I want to reiterate
our continuing appreciation for the work of FAA staff to address the problems Palo Alto and neighboring
cities have experienced since implementation of the NextGen program in the Northern California
Metroplex. NextGen added substantial air traffic to our skies, mainly due to the high concentration of
jets that now fly over or near MENLO waypoint, at low altitudes, throughout the day and night. It
remains critical to achieve meaningful relief since jet noise -as well as emissions -have a negative
impact on the quality of life and health of people who live, work and study in our City.
We recognize that the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San
Mateo/San Francisco Counties is intended to explore changes to published procedures that would help
mitigate noise complaints. The purpose of this letter is to highlight Palo Alto's top three priorities as they
relate to specific items in the FM's Phase Two report issued July 2017 (the "Report") as part of the
initiative.
While the Report signals some relief is in progress at last, we are concerned the FAA does not provide
adequate assurance that solutions will include higher, more distributed flights, as well as fewer
overnight flights, sooner rather than later. Nor does it sufficiently commit to a transparent process -
including credible impact assessments -before any final implementation decisions. We urge the FM to
consider the below priorities as it prepares for Phase Three of the initiative process.
1. Reduce the concentration of SFO arrivals using MENLO waypoint. Per FAA data, 60% of SFO
arrivals pass over or near MENLO waypoint, mostly on the SERFR and BDEGA West-leg paths. One
action that would greatly alleviate this problem is to designate alternative waypoint(s) to MENLO for
a portion of SERFR southern arrivals {which represent 30% of all SFO arrivals). The Report indicates
this proposal is "currently under evaluation" {4.d .iv). Some alternative waypoints have been
proposed that could enable aircraft to fly at significantly higher altitudes -and over less-populated
areas-and then descend the length of the Bay. We also encourage the FM to develop other
options based on its analysis and modeling. To address potential objections to moving some flights
(in both this and other contexts), the FAA should specify objective criteria for what constitutes
"noise shifting."1
1 One such standard appears in the FAA's Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for the NorCal
OAPM Project issued July 2014 (at http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/norcal metroplex/
NorCal OAPM FONSl-ROD.pdf). On page 5, it states that noise impacts need only be evaluated for proposed
changes in arrival procedures up to 7,000 feet above ground level (AGL), which implies that re-routing flights to
above 7,000 feet AGL would not be considered to cause noise-shifting. To the extent some overflights of
populated areas will occur below 7,000-foot altitudes, the FAA should establish an equitable dispersal approach
that uses a "pre-NextGen baseline" of flight concentrations.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
November 15, 2017
Another action that would help reduce MENLO concentration is to rebalance BDEGA West northern
arrivals {which come down the Peninsula and make a U-turn over Palo Alto area) and BDEGA East
arrivals {which fly more over the Bay). We appreciate that the Report indicates rerouting night
flights is feasible and could be implemented in the short term {l.c.vi, 2.a.i). The Report additionally
states that rerouting flights during certain times of the day is also feasible but implementation
would be in the long term {3.a.i), and that restoring the West/East balance to its pre-2010 level
{SO/SO) is "currently under evaluation" (4.a.iii). Although these changes would still leave a
significant number of BDEGA flights over Palo Alto, they would provide some relief, and we
therefore hope the FAA proceeds with these steps as expeditiously as possible.
2. Increase minimum altitude for all flights over/in vicinity of MENLO waypoint to at least 5,000 feet.
The current minimum altitude at MENLO is 4,000 feet {although anecdotal data from users of the
stop.jetnoise.net app show a significant portion of jets overfly MENLO below 4,000 feet), which is
lower than before NextGen. The Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals unanimously
recommended increasing the minimum altitude to S,000 feet for all traffic over and around MENLO.
The Report states that a S,000 minimum altitude for vectored flights in the vicinity of Menlo, as well
as aircraft crossing Menlo/vicinity under visual conditions, is "currently under evaluation" (4.d.i,
4.d.ii). The Report rejects a 4,000-foot minimum altitude for instrument approaches over MENLO as
"not feasible" due to "procedural development criteria & safety standards" (6.c.viii).
While we are encouraged that S,000-foot minimums are under evaluation for vectored and visual
approaches and urge prompt action, we believe strongly that similar relief must be extended to
instrument arrivals, which constitute much of the MENLO traffic. The FAA provided assurance that
NextGen would allow aircraft to "maintain higher altitudes and lower thrust for longer periods" in its
draft Environmental Assessment for the NorCal OAPM published in March 2014.2 No sound reason
has been given why a S,000-foot minimum for instrument flights would not be feasible if, for
example, the glide slopes for RWYs 28R and/or 28L were increased even slightly to allow for higher
descending altitudes, especially considering that technological advances such as RNAV and GPS
enable aircraft to follow more accurate and better-defined routes. We therefore urge the FAA to
reconsider its position and to further provide a means for ongoing monitoring and enforcement to
assure compliance once new procedures are established.
3. Reduce vectoring of SFO arrivals without worsening MENLO concentration. About SO% of arrivals
on SERFR, plus those on BDEGA and OCEANIC, are routinely turned off their assigned procedure by
Air Traffic Control to sequence them for merging onto final SFO approach. This causes substantial
noise due to more aircraft miles, turning, and changes in speed. The Report notes that a proposal
for the FAA to work with the SFO Roundtable "to determine where aircraft can be vectored with the
least noise impact" is feasible/short-term {2.d.i). Increased in-trail separation on SERFR and possibly
BDEGA, which may entail ground delays at departing airports, is noted as feasible/long-term (3.c.ii).
We appreciate the intent to direct aircraft to be vectored so as to cause "the least noise impact,"
but request more specific criteria for how this determination will be made. Also, under no
circumstances should a reduction in vectoring lead to even higher concentrations on flight paths
over and around MENLO waypoint.
2 At http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/norcal metroplex/NorCal OAPM DEA Complete.pdf,
section 1.2.5.3.
2
In addition, the FAA is considering reverting the SERFR track to the old BSR track (2.f.i). The Select
Committee had conditioned its approval of this proposal on several criteria to prevent moving noise as
compared to 2014 levels, and it is important these are followed. Further, we continue to believe that
improved, supplemental noise metrics are critical to properly assess the true impact experienced by
people on the ground, and we encourage prompt action on the FAA's evaluation of this issue (4.e.xi).
The Palo Alto City Council remains committed to working with the FAA, San Francisco International
Airport, San Jose International Airport, Congressional leaders, our neighboring cities and counties, and
all stakeholders to ensure a reasonable solution is identified for our region.
Sincerely,
~ H. G egory Scharff
Mayor
cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein of California
Senator Kamala D. Harris of California
Representative Anna Eshoo
Representative Jackie Speier
Dennis Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Administrator
Palo Alto City Council
James Keene, City Manager
Molly Stump, City Attorney
3
Attachment C:
FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa
Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties
UPDATE ON PHASE TWO
Compiled at the Requests of Representatives Farr
(Panetta), Eshoo and Speier
November 2017
This attachment can be found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62294
Attachment D
Figure 1: BDEGA Arrivals, West and East Legs
Figure 2: DYAMD Arrival, SFO Final Approach, and Surrounding Airspace
1
Memorandum
TO: Heather Dauler and Khashayar Alaee
FROM: Steve Palmer, Channon Hanna, and David Haines
RE: Update: Committee Votes on House and Senate FAA Reauthorization Bills / Summary of
Noise and Community Engagement Provisions
DATE: June 30, 2017
This memo is an update to the memo dated June 23 which outlined the noise and community
engagement provisions in H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization
Act (21st Century AIRR Act) and S. 1405, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
2017. The additional information reflects in this memo reflects how both bills were treated during
Committee consideration.
H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act
House Committee Markup
On June 27, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved by a vote of 32-25, H.R. 2997,
the 21st Century AIRR Act. The six-year bill creates a private, nonprofit organization to run the nation’s
air traffic control system and provides additional language on airport noise and community engagement.
During the markup, only one amendment on noise was offered by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA). The
amendment would have given FAA the exclusive authority to resolve noise disputes and require any
change in air traffic management procedures, including standard instrument departure procedures,
standard terminal arrival routes, and instrument approach procedures, or other necessary activities by
the new corporation affecting the airspace to reduce noise exposure. During the discussion, Chairman
Shuster voiced opposition to the amendment saying that he believes the bill already provides this
authority on noise issues to FAA. He continued by saying that he would agree to continue to work on
this issue with Rep. Capuano, if he would agree to withdraw his amendment. In response, Rep. Capuano
withdrew the amendment saying he looked forward to working with the Chairman on the issue.
H.R. 2997 – Noise and Community Engagement Provisions
The following provisions are in the bill and did not change during this week’s committee action:
• Addressing Community Noise Concerns. When proposing or amending area navigation
departure procedures that would have flights between the surface and 6,000 feet over noise
sensitive areas, the bill requires FAA to consider other procedures to address community noise
concerns if: 1) the affected airport, in consultation with the affected community, submits a
2
request to FAA to consider other procedures; 2) the airport’s request would not conflict with the
safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system; and 3) the effect of a modified
departure procedure would not significantly increase the noise over noise sensitive areas.
• Study on Potential Heath Impacts of Overflight Noise. The bill requires FAA to conduct a study
on the heath impacts of noise from aircraft flights on residents exposed to a range of noise
levels. The study must include: an examination of the incremental health impacts of noise
exposure including sleep disturbance and elevated blood pressure; consider the incremental
heath impacts on residents living partly or wholly underneath flight paths most frequently used
by aircraft flying below 10,000 feet, including during takeoff and landing; include an assessment
of the relationship between a perceived increase in aircraft noise and an actual increase in
noise, particularly in areas with high or variable levels or non-aircraft ambient noise. The study
is required to focus on the following metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, New York, the
Northern California Metroplex, Phoenix, and any other area the FAA believes should be
considered. A report to Congress is due within 90 days of FAA completing the study.
• Community Involvement in FAA NextGen Projects Located in Metroplexes. The bill requires that
within 180 days of enactment, FAA complete a review of the agency’s community involvement
practices for Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) projects located in FAA-
identified metroplexes. There is a requirement that the review include a determination of how
and when to engage airports and communities in performance based navigation proposals.
• The FAA is required to submit a report to Congress within 60 days of the review which describes:
1) how FAA will improve community involvement practices for NextGen projects located in
metroplexes; 2) how and when FAA will engage airports and communities in performance based
navigation proposals; and 3) lessons learned from NextGen projects and pilot programs and how
those lessons are being integrated into community involvement practices for future NextGen
projects located in metroplexes.
• Noise Exposure Study. The bill requires that FAA conduct a review of the relationship between
aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports. The FAA is required to
send a report to Congress within two years containing the results of the review. Based on the
results of the review and in coordination with other agencies, the report should include FAA’s
preliminary recommendations for revising the land use compatibility guidelines.
S. 1405, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017
Senate Committee Markup
On June 29, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved S. 1405, the Federal
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017. The bill does not contain any relevant language on
airport noise and community engagement. During the markup, several amendments were offered and
accepted, none of which touched on airport noise or community engagement.
Next Steps
While both House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster and Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Chairman John Thune have said they would like to see floor action on their
3
respective bills in July, both have admitted that time may not be available given the packed
Congressional agenda before August recess. We will continue to track these bills as they move through
both the House and the Senate and notify you of any changes made that are relevant to airport noise
and community engagement.
N.O.I.S.E.
National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
2017 Legislative Priorities
1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT // ADVOCACY
N.O.I.S.E. supports expanding community engagement/review and the elimination of Categorical
Exclusions (CATEX) when implementing Performance Based Navigation (PBN).
Although N.O.I.S.E. supports NextGen and its goal of modernizing the air traffic control system,
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) has the potential to bring significant changes to flight patterns
across the country. N.O.I.S.E. contends that the community impacts of aviation noise should be
considered as a crucial part of the calculation that determines the overall benefits of the proposed
changes. Changes should not be solely based on improved capacity and fuel savings. With the increased
concentration of overflights due to the narrowing of flight paths and the decrease in separation between
aircraft enabled by PBN, air traffic changes have become even more closely tied to changes on the
ground.
Aviation noise is a health issue. Aviation noise is an economic issue. To that end, robust, two-way
communication with affected communities is vital to ensuring that the impact and concerns of
communities are heard and incorporated into the final design of new airspace as much asfuel savings
and efficiency of airspace. This would allow communities under a new or concentrated flight path,
guaranteed participation in a due process during the implementation of PBN.
As a part of efforts to ensure adequate community engagement, N.O.I.S.E. believes that both regulatory
and legislative Categorical Exclusions or “CATEXes” in current NEPA regulation are not appropriate for
the implementation of significant changes to our aviation system. N.O.I.S.E. supports efforts by the FAA
and Congress to develop, implement and maintain a more robust community impacts process, in
addition to or outside of the traditional NEPA process. This process should insure that ground impacts
are considered and community concerns are not only heard, but also incorporated into PBN and
traditional track changes that will change noise exposure, even if it does not reach the current FAA
threshold of “measurable impacts”
In December of 2016, the following language was included in the National Defense Authorization Act,
which promotes this priority: Performance-Based Navigation : This section improves the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) advance consultation with communities underneath the flight paths of
proposed "NextGen" departure and arrival procedures, and requires the Administrator to reopen his
assessment of new NextGen procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and to mitigate any
adverse effects on the human environment that resulted from those procedures."
2. NOISE METRICS REVIEW
N.O.I.S.E. supports investigation and review of DNL and its current level of 65 as the only metric
used to measure noise impact and expanding noise metrics to take into account the increased
concentration of overflights due to the narrowing of flight paths and the decrease in separation
between aircraft enabled by PBN procedures to insure that noise impacts are appropriately
measured.
N.O.I.S.E.
National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
In order to adequately understand and address the impacts of aviation noise, we must first establish
adequate metrics to measure those impacts. The FAA and Members of Congress are in the process of
studying whether 65 is still the appropriate DNL level for measuring noise impacts. As we move forward
with NextGen, implement PBN and undertake major airport overhauls, lowering the DNL level may
allow for further mitigation for impacted communities and N.O.I.SE supports investigation of lowering
the DNL level, however it will not address impacts that are caused by concentrated flight paths
characterized by PBN procedures.
As DNL is an average and humans do not perceive noise in averages but rather as individual events, we
believe it is time to investigate alternative metrics that could measure impacts such as:
• The psychological impact of concentrated, extended noise
• The physiological impact of infrequent, significant noise spikes during nighttime hours
• Impact of less audible low frequency noise who’s vibration induces audible noise
• The length of each period of frequent, regular noise spikes “rush hours” due to over-flights
• The number of rush hours per day
• The average dB of a rush hour’s noise—not day-night average
• The intensity of spikes above the average dB of a rush hour’s noise
• The intensity and number of spikes above the average, for non-rush hours from 10 PM to 7 AM
Investigating a more appropriate metric to measure aviation noise impacts is crucial and will
supplement efforts to greater engage the community to understand their concerns.
3. HEALTH IMPACTS STUDI ES
N.O.I.S.E. supports increased funding for studies on the health impacts of aviation noise.
There are currently very few federal studies pertaining to the human impact of the concentration of
flights associated with PBN procedures. Some communities do not have the ability to mitigate noise
below flight paths and their citizens are exposed to continuous concentrated noise. Although there may
not necessarily be an increase in decibels from the planes, there are unknown potential impacts from
the increased number and frequency of flights under a given PBN procedure.
Although N.O.I.S.E. has supported the implementation of NextGen technologies as a part of their formal
legislative platform in the past, we assert that there must be proper investment into research and
development on the health and psychological impacts of that type of the resulting noise due to the more
concentrated flight paths. These studies need to begin as soon as possible in order to protect the health
of affected communities and mitigate avoidable damage.
4. SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM FUNDING
N.O.I.S.E. supports implementing Sound Insulation Programs Resulting from Part 150 Program
studies to the standards used prior to the September, 2012 Public Guidance Letter (PGL-12-09).
A Part 150 program is a noise mitigation master plan developed by the airport and communities to
address noise impacts and is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) out of the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). One outcome or tool of a Part 150 is a sound insulation program where
homes are mitigated for noise by providing improvements to windows or heating and cooling systems.
N.O.I.S.E.
National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
Insulation programs historically have mitigated homes within the 65 DNL noise contour. A Public
Guidance Letter (PGL) was issued by the FAA to change the AIP handbook in August, 2012 and amended
in November, 2012.
In order to be eligible for insulation, properties must meet a 2-stage eligibility test: the property must be
in the 65 contour and the property must meet an interior noise level requirement (45 dB or greater).
Additionally, use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC’s) is no longer considered eligible to be used to
mitigate beyond the stated criteria. The FAA maintains that this is not a new policy and that this PGL
serves to clarify their noise policy that has been in place since the mid-1980’s. Previously, however,
common practice dictated that properties need only be within the 65 DNL to qualify for mitigation.
In addition, given the age of some SIP programs in the Unites States, as well as the increase in traffic
density at our nation’s airports and improved technologies, N.O.I.S.E. supports the development of
criteria for eligibility for SIP funding for “second round” implementations.
5. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION
N.O.I.S.E. opposes privatization of the air traffic control
N.O.I.S.E. has advocated strongly for community engagement opportunities when air traffic patterns are
changed. Under a federally-operated Air Traffic Control (ATC) system, those opportunities are the result
of persistent advocacy by the community and often times at the request of elected officials at the
Congressional level. Although small communities have a role in the proposed advisory board of the new
private air traffic control, airport-adjacent communities are concerned that without a mechanism for
compelling the private company to meet and discuss their concerns over ground and noise impacts of
airport traffic. Authors of this proposal in the House have assured interest groups that community
concerns will still be managed by the FAA and not the private ATC. However, because of the great
importance that N.O.I.S.E. and its members place on the ability to build relationships and trust with local
air traffic employees, our concerns with this proposal remain.
6. N.O.I.S.E. SUPPORTS EFFORTS TO REINSTITU TE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY’S
(EPA) OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND
CONTROL (ONAC).
The EPA office of Noise Abatement and Control was previously responsible for oversight and regulation
of aviation noise, however, in 1981, the Office was defunded due to budget cuts. There are currently
legislative efforts, such as Congresswoman Grace Meng’s (NY) “Quiet Communities Act of 2015”
(H.R.3384) which requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat aviation noise
pollution. This legislation would reinstate the ONAC, and also require the EPA Administrator to conduct
a study of airport noise and examine the FAA’s selection of noise measurement methodologies, health
impact thresholds, and abatement program effectiveness. N.O.I.S.E. supports this legislation and the
reinstitution of the ONAC in order to provide proper checks and balances to FAA noise policies and
procedures that impact residents and the environment on the ground under flight paths and in airport-
adjacent communities.
New and cheaper flights fueled by resurgence
at Bay Area airports
The surge in flights at SJC and OAK has been a delight to East Bay
and South Bay travelers
By JOHN WOOLFOLK | jwoolfolk@bayareanewsgroup.com |
PUBLISHED: January 28, 2018 at 6:00 am | UPDATED: January 29, 2018 at 5:53 am
It’s a good time to fly in the Bay Area.
In a turnaround that seemed unimaginable a decade ago, airlines that were rocked by spiking fuel
prices, a sour economy and a rash of bankruptcies are now flying high, filling Bay Area airports
with new and cheaper domestic and international flights.
Flights once available only in San Francisco have flocked to San Jose, now the nation’s fastest
growing airport, and Oakland, which has seen a surge in international travel. Gone are the days
when the only San Jose to New York flight was a red-eye and the city airport’s only international
destination was Mexico. Silicon Valley travelers now fly from San Jose to the Big Apple
throughout the day, and jet straight to Japan, China, England, Canada and Germany.
At Oakland’s airport, international no longer means just late night flights to Mexico and a
weekly departure to the Azores during the summer. It now boasts flights to Spain, England,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and coming this year, Italy and France.
“The Bay Area and Silicon Valley in particular has become the center of the universe, and every
airline wants to be part of the action,” said Chris McGinnis, founder of San Francisco-based
travel blog Travelskills.com. “San Francisco appears to be running out of space to accommodate
all this, so everyone’s running to San Jose and Oakland to get into the market. With all those new
seats and new flights, it means fares are coming down.”
A couple could book a weekend getaway in April with nonstop roundtrip flights from San Jose to
Beijing for as low as $470 on Hainan Airlines. They could fly from Oakland to Barcelona
nonstop on Norwegian for $588 round trip each.
The resurgence of the Bay Area’s smaller airports has been a delight to travelers, particularly
those who find San Jose or Oakland closer to work or home.
“It’s a lot more convenient,” said Tim Renouf, 50, a software engineer at Advanced Micro
Devices who now flies direct between home in England and work in Silicon Valley.
“It beats sitting on 101 after a long flight to San Francisco,” co-worker David Stuttard, 47, said
with a smile.
For Veronica Niegsch of Pleasanton, more options to fly direct from Oakland to visit family in
Mexico have been a blessing.
“I love it,” said Niegsch, 44, a Federal Aviation Administration budget official who was waiting
last week to board a Volaris flight to Guadalajara. Not only is Oakland closer to home, but she
finds it much quicker to park and get through security. “It’s small, but you have a lot of options.”
The air travel surge has been a relief to Bay Area airport officials, who bet big on modernizing
their 1960s-era facilities during the downturn a decade ago.
Shortly after San Jose approved its biggest-ever bond sale for a $1.3 billion airport makeover, the
airport’s top official warned that the U.S. airline industry was “facing its worst crisis in its
history.” Fuel prices were soaring, carriers were reporting record losses and a half-dozen airlines
had filed for bankruptcy protection.
San Jose and Oakland watched anxiously as struggling airlines consolidated routes at major hubs
like San Francisco. Passenger traffic was still falling to 8.2 million in 2010 when San Jose
unveiled its gleaming new, spacious high-tech terminal, which had been scaled back from a more
ambitious plan. Oakland invested in a $300 million terminal improvement program and a BART
transit connection that opened in 2014. Yet passenger traffic that peaked at 14.6 million in 2007
plummeted to 9.3 million with the onset of the Great Recession.
But in the last five years, annual passenger traffic has jumped 25 percent to 55.8 million at San
Francisco International, 31 percent to 13.1 million at Oakland International and a stunning 51
percent to 12.5 million at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport.
“To some extent San Jose has bounced back the most because it had lost the most before,”
said Alan R. Bender, professor of aeronautics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Worldwide in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Falling fuel prices and a now-booming economy helped pull the airlines out of their tailspin,
along with a wave of mergers and a new generation of highly efficient jetliners. Aircraft like the
Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 have allowed airlines more freedom to take chances on routes from
smaller airports.
“With fuel prices low and these very economical jets, that favors medium markets like San
Jose,” Bender said. “They can take risks they couldn’t take a few years ago.”
But patience, persistence and some smart plays helped San Jose and Oakland take advantage as
the industry recovered.
In San Jose, city officials spent years courting a direct flight to Asia, something Silicon Valley
executives had been craving. They worked with business leaders to assure airlines there was pent
up demand for new routes. It eventually paid off when All Nippon Airways launched a direct
flight to Japan in 2013 on the new 787 Dreamliner. A wave of other flights quickly followed.
“If a couple carriers go to a new airport, others do follow,” said Carl Guardino, chief executive
of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents major technology companies. “But it’s
really hard to get the first ones to make that bet. We tell that airline that if they come here, we’ll
do everything we can to make them successful.”
In five years San Jose went from 29 domestic and two international destinations in 2012 to 43
domestic and 11 international destinations in 2017.
“The rate of growth has been tremendous,” said Marc Casto, president of Casto Travel in San
Jose, one of the largest travel management companies in the Bay Area. “It’s one of the fastest
growing airports in passenger growth around the nation.”
The growth has been so rapid that San Jose added two gates, bringing the total to 30, and is
planning an expansion of up to 10 more.
“We’ve experienced tremendous passenger growth and it’s been a great thing,” said San Jose
Airport Director John Aitken. “But with that growth comes some deficiencies in our facilities
we’ll have to deal with pretty soon.”
Oakland airport officials bored into travel data and found a huge proportion of international
travelers flying out of San Francisco lived in the East Bay or Wine Country, and pursued a
strategy to tap that market.
“You can go over to another airport and be the fourth airline going to a European market, or go
to Oakland and be the only one,” said John Albrecht, Oakland International’s manager of
aviation marketing.
It paid off. Oakland has gone from 29 domestic and three international destinations in 2012 to 48
domestic and 14 international destinations today. International traffic surged 134 percent in the
past year, and the airport just completed a $45 million renovation and expansion that doubled its
international arrival operations capacity.
San Francisco meanwhile continues to set new records in passenger traffic.
Some airports have seen double-digit growth,” said SFO spokesman Doug Yakel, noting the
bounce-back at the Bay Area’s smaller airports. “Our growth has been steady for a number of
years.”
McGinnis said the turnabout at the smaller airports has been stunning.
“Multiple flights to Asia from San Jose is something I never thought I’d see,” McGinnis said.
“And I never thought I’d see Oakland be the first airport (in the Bay Area) to get a nonstop to
Rome. They beat San Francisco to that, that’s a big deal.”
Guardino said businesses don’t see the airports in competition, but that “the goal is to balance
out three great airports so that the whole region is successful.”
At the moment, that seems to be working, for both business and leisure travelers. Albrecht said
that with so many oversees flights pushing prices down, Bay Area travelers are making weekend
getaways to Europe.
“You wouldn’t do it if air fare was $2,000, but now that it’s $500 round trip, it’s suddenly on the
list of things to do,” Albrecht said. “That used to be ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.'”