HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-23 Policy & Services Committee Agenda PacketPolicy and Services Committee
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
May 23, 2017
Special Meeting
Community Meeting Room
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers/Community Meeting Room, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Committee, but it is very helpful.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1. Discuss the Topic of Aircraft Noise, Review Federal Legislative Updates
and Recommend That City Council Reaffirm City's Positions to Reduce
Aircraft Noise and Make Other Recommendations as Needed to
Advance City’s Goals to Reduce Aircraft Noise Over the Skies of Palo
Alto
2. Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That the
Policy and Services Committee Make a Recommendation That Council
Recommend: (1) Option 2 for the Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network
(FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi-Fi to
Unserved City Facilities and Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided
Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas
3. Recreational and Medical Marijuana: Review and Discussion of State
Law Developments and Input to Staff on Next Steps, Including
Possible Ordinance Adopting Local Regulations Regarding Commercial
Marijuana Activity, Outdoor Cultivation, and Marijuana Dispensaries.
This Action is Exempt Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
2 May 23, 2017
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Future Meetings and Agendas
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8143)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Airplane Noise Update
Title: Discuss the Topic of Aircraft Noise, Review Federal Legislative Updates
and Recommend that City Council Reaffirm City's Positions to Reduce Aircraft
Noise and Make Other Recommendations as Needed to Advance City’s Goals
to Reduce Aircraft Noise Over the Skies of Palo Alto.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Summary
On November 17, 2016 the Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals,
commissioned by congressional representatives Eshoo, Speier and Farr, along with San
Francisco Airport (SFO) Community Roundtable’s Response to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Initiative were issued by the respective governing entities to the
aforementioned federal representatives. Both reports are attached and contain a series of
recommendations in response to citizens’ concerns about airplane noise. In March 2017 Mayor
Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, Councilmember Wolbach and Councilmember Fine met with FAA
officials during their attendance at the National League of Cities Annual Legislative meeting in
Washington, D.C.
On May 17, 2017 Congressional Representatives Eshoo, Speier, and Panetta issued a press
release which is attached. They stated that “We have been advised that the FAA will send their
completed document to the Department of Transportation (DOT) within a month for final
review and authorization. It is not known at this time how long the DOT will take to authorize
the release of the response; we will continue to follow-up and will release the response as soon
as we receive it.”
Attached is an update on current FAA federal legislative matters.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee recommend that the City Council
reaffirm the City’s positions to reduce aircraft noise over the skies of Palo Alto, seek a seat on
the Select Committee's proposed Ad-Hoc Committee and any new permanent entity created to
address aircraft noise, and have City Council confirm these recommendations before the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
summer 2017 recess, if possible. At that time, the Committee Report can also alert the Council
that a subsequent discussion before Council will be necessary once the City has received a
response to the reports from the FAA through Congress.
Secondarily staff recommends that the Committee discuss seeking membership in the SFO
Community Roundtable as well as partnering with SFO’s Noise Abatement Office to install
temporary noise monitors in Palo Alto and make the appropriate recommendations to City
Council.
Background
Palo Alto is impacted by three arrival routes into SFO. These routes arrive from the north, west
and south. The City has dedicated substantial staff time, hired noise and aviation consultants,
and engaged our federal legislative consultants to advocate for our goals and support
community engagement. On several occasions the City has recommended that the FAA should:
1. Create more “points” for aircraft to use while entering SFO. There is currently one point
(MENLO waypoint) used for flights coming in from the north, west, or south. This point
centralizes all arrival aircraft and noise over Palo Alto.
2. Redirect flights arriving from the south to the east; away from the Pacific Ocean coast to the
hills west of Interstate 5 and have aircraft enter the Bay from the east.
3. Shift the flights arriving from the north away from the Peninsula to the Bay.
4. Encourage the divisions and staff within FAA to work in partnership with each other to
minimize noise through efficient organization of aircraft schedules and routes while also
utilizing arrival descents that limit speed brakes.
These recommendations are reflected in City communications to the FAA, Select Committee
and Congresswoman Eshoo’s office. All documents, letters, and reports can be found on the
City’s website to this topic: www.cityofpaloalto.org/airplanenoise.
Analysis of Select Committee and SFO Roundtable Reports
The most significant problem raised by our citizens is noise. Airplane noise over Palo Alto is
generated due to the convergence of three arrival routes into SFO over one geographic three
dimensional point referred to as the MENLO waypoint. This waypoint is located near Willow
Road and Highway 101. It is this waypoint and its proximity to the airport that aircraft use to
navigate their approaches which leads to low altitude flights over Palo Alto and some other
Midpeninsula cities. The three SFO routes that use this waypoint can be characterized as
arrivals from the north, west and south.
Northerly Arrivals
This route brings aircraft over the Peninsula and completes a left banking U-turn over Palo Alto
to then approach SFO. The Committee recommended that this route use the Bay for arrival,
instead of the Peninsula, and complete a right banking U-turn. This would reduce the number
of flights over the Midpeninsula and Palo Alto. The City’s position aligns with this
City of Palo Alto Page 3
recommendation. The SFO Roundtable concurred with the Select Committee but was cautious
with its recommendation due to the volume of airplane traffic using the Bay.
Westerly Arrivals
This route brings aircraft from Asia over Woodside and then making a left turn at or near the
MENLO waypoint for the arriving final approach to SFO. The percent of flights using this route is
substantially lower compared to the northerly and southerly routes. Additionally, as mentioned
by various speakers during the Select Committee meetings, providing alternative route
recommendations for this arrival is difficult due to air travel over the vast Pacific Ocean and the
fuel capacity of aircraft in relation to changing weather patterns. The Committee recommended
that FAA comply with existing noise abatement procedure with particular attention to night
time flights. The City’s position mostly aligns with this recommendation. The SFO Roundtable
concurred with the Select Committee report but acknowledged that due to a customized arrival
plan, referred to as Ocean Tailored Arrival, some flights with FAA approval do fly at low
altitudes and that there are limited options to further mitigate this arrival route.
Southerly Arrivals
This route brings aircraft over the Santa Cruz area to then fly over the South Bay, Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills, and Palo Alto to then complete a left turn at or near the MENLO waypoint for the
final to approach SFO. The Select Committee made four detailed recommendations regarding
this route. They are simplified and noted here:
1. Design a new route using the former arrival route referred to as Big Sur;
2. Ensure arrivals cross the MENLO waypoint at or above 5,000 ft.;
3. Monitor and measure noise for this new route;
4. Design an entirely new route that takes maximum advantage of non-residential areas such
as unpopulated areas, industrial areas, parkland, cemeteries, etc.
The City’s position aligns with No. 4 of this recommendation. Numbers 1 to 3 are generally
improvements for the Midpeninsula region but not long term solutions in reducing aircraft
noise over Palo Alto.
It is also important to note that during the Select Committee hearings the City recommended
two specific proposals for southerly arrivals (in addition to our four standing positions). One
proposal recommended using the full extent of the Bay and entering the Bay Area over
Fremont and Milpitas at very high altitudes. The Committee and SFO Roundtable did
recommend that the FAA consider transitioning nighttime flights from the south to the east.
The other new suggestion was to divert some flights arriving from the Santa Cruz area to travel
several miles south of Palo Alto at much higher altitudes. The Committee did not endorse the
idea based on FAA advice that they lack the technology to have aircraft join a flight path at
various points.
Palo Alto, SFO Roundtable Membership and an Ongoing Forum to Address Aircraft Noise
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Palo Alto’s recent history with the SFO Roundtable dates back to 2014 when the City requested
membership but was not granted voting status. In 2016 the item reemerged with the SFO
Roundtable placing the topic on their agenda without notifying the City. The item was not
discussed due to the lack of support by Congresswoman Eshoo who was in the process of
forming the Select Committee and stated that “Santa Clara County has 15 cities within its
jurisdiction and adding only one city as voting member is not an equitable solution.”
Additionally since the City was not aware about the SFO Roundtable’s desire to discuss the item
the City asked that the item not be discussed at that time.
To address the need and inequity between Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, the Select
Committee made to two recommendations. One being the formation of an “Ad-Hoc Committee
consisting of two Members/Alternates from the Select Committee (or others yet to be named)
from each County/Congressional District to be convened by the three members of Congress
who empaneled the Select Committee over the short-term to continue work on the issues
identified in the report.” Second, they recommended that “a permanent entity be established
to address issues of aircraft noise in the three county area on an ongoing basis, and to provide a
forum for community input.”
The Policy & Services Committee may be interested in representation on and access to an
ongoing entity that addresses aircraft noise and impacts. The SFO Roundtable is currently the
only formal entity and the City could seek participation. Yet in light of the Select Committee
report recommendations to create an Ad-Hoc Committee and possibly a new permanent entity,
as well as no response from the FAA to the reports, should we pursue SFO Roundtable
membership now?
Noise Measurement and Monitoring
The Select Committee acknowledged that the FAA’s established noise measurement metrics are
inadequate and do not represent what is being experienced by citizens on the ground. The
Committee report states that “the shortcomings exist in large measure because the cumulative
noise level (over a 24-hour period) is not high enough to technically constitute a significant
impact.” The report goes on to state that “the use of Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)
alone is ill-suited to assess ground level impacts.” The Committee recommended that Congress
require the FAA to adopt supplemental metrics for aircraft noise.
Furthermore, the Select Committee recognized the need for before and after noise monitoring
by making two recommendations. They requested the FAA and or SFO to monitor and
document noise exposure from any feasible solutions before and after implementation and
secondarily to establish a set of regional monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area and the
three Congressional districts.
Palo Alto does not have any SFO Noise Abatement Office sanctioned noise monitors located
throughout the city. SFO has offered to install temporary noise monitors throughout Palo Alto.
Staff has not yet requested these temporary monitors due to concerns regarding the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
inadequate noise measurement metrics and varying expert opinions about the usefulness of
noise monitors. Staff has invited SFO Noise Abatement Office staff to comment on this topic at
the Committee meeting.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Select Committee Report
Attachment B: SFO Roundtable Report
Attachment C: VSA Memo re Federal Legislation
Attachment D: FAA Graphic of SFO Arrivals
Attachment E: Congressional Representative Press Release
Report of the
Select Committee on South
Bay Arrivals
Approved November 17, 2016
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
GLOSSARY 1
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES 3
SECTION 1: FAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE, FEASIBILITY GROUPS 1 – 6 4
1.1 SFO Class B Amendment 4
1.2 Transition the SERFR STAR Back to the BSR Ground Track Prior to EPICK 5
1.3 Increasing Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE Until at Least
the NIITE Waypoint 7
1.4 Create a New South Transition for the NIITE SID 7
1.5 Increasing Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on CNDEL Until at
Least the CNDEL Waypoint 8
1.6 Improve Aircraft Set Up and Sequencing Between Facilities 9
SECTION 2: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT 10
COMMITTEE
2.1 Airbus A320 Aircraft Family Wake Vortex Generators Retrofit 10
2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO 10
2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon) 11
2.4 Overnight Flights 12
2.5 MENLO Waypoint 13
2.6 Raise the Floor of Altitude Control Windows on SERFR 15
2.7 Increase the Altitude and Profile of Descents into SFO 15
2.8 Increase All Altitudes 16
2.9 Aircraft Vectoring 16
2.10 Runway Usage 17
2.11 Modify BRIXX Procedure into San Jose International Airport 18
2.12 Modify NRRLI Waypoint on the First Leg of SERFR 19
2.13 San Jose International Airport Reverse Flow: Aircraft Arrivals 20
2.14 Redirect Southern Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO 20
2.15 Fan-in Overseas Arrivals (OCEANIC) into SFO 21
2.16 Herringbone Approach to SFO Arrivals 22
2.17 Return to Pre-NextGen Procedures, Altitudes, and Concentration 22
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONTINUED
SECTION 3: LONGER TERM ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE 23
3.1 Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation 23
3.2 Restricted/Special Use Airspace 24
3.3 Noise Measurement 24
3.4 Capacity Limitations 25
3.5 Aircraft Speed 25
SECTION 4: PROCESS ISSUES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE 26
4.1 Who Makes Recommendations to Whom 26
4.2 Need for Before/After Noise Monitoring 26
4.3 Ensuring Compliance 27
APPENDIX A: VOTE RECORD A1-A2
APPENDIX B: MAP OF KEY WAYPOINTS B1
APPENDIX C: MAPS OF SELECTED FLIGHT PATHS C1-C5
BSR and SERFR C1
NIITE C2
CNDEL C3
BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD C4
BRIXX C5
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT FIVE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING
70 WEST HEDDING STREET, 10TH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
TEL: (408) 299-5050 or (650) 965-8737 FAX: (408) 280-0418
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org • www.supervisorsimitian.com
November 17, 2016
The Honorable Anna Eshoo
Congresswoman, 18th District
698 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Honorable Sam Farr
Congressman, 20th District
701 Ocean Street, Room 318C
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The Honorable Jackie Speier
Congresswoman, 14th District
155 Bovet Road, Suite 780
San Mateo, CA 94402
Dear Honorable Members of Congress:
With this letter I convey to you the final Recommendations of your Select Committee on South Bay
Arrivals.
These Recommendations reflect the work of the 12 Member Committee and their 12 Alternates (see
Attachment A), empaneled by you, over the course of almost two dozen meetings during the past six
months (see Attachment B).
While your original charge to the Committee was essentially limited to the six sets of “feasible” actions
identified as part of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Northern California Initiative, the
Committee also considered other potential solutions suggested during the course our hearings, and
offered Recommendations where appropriate (see Section 2).
The Committee also identified a number of “longer-term issues” for deliberation and potential action
in the future (see Section 3); as well as a number of “process issues” that the Committee thought worth
highlighting (see Section 4).
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress
November 17, 2016
Page 2
While this report runs almost 30 pages in length, our Recommendations might succinctly be
summarized as:
Fly at higher altitudes;
Fly over locations with fewer people;
Avoid noisy flight maneuvers; and,
Implement noise reducing retrofits where possible.
While the Committee has not made any effort to “rank order” or prioritize Recommendations,
there are two I feel it appropriate to highlight for your consideration.
First, the very challenging and high profile issue of whether or not to abandon the SERFR flight
procedure/path in favor of a flight procedure/path along the ground track formerly used for the BSR
flight procedure/path (see Item 1.2).
The Committee did in fact recommend such a change on an 8-4 vote as a near-term remedial action
(consistent with other criteria set forth in Recommendation 2 of Item 1.2). It is important, however, to
note that the Committee has also recommended (on a 12-0 vote) the identification and development of
a better procedure and path for the long-term (as noted in Recommendation 4 of Item 1.2).
The Committee earnestly hopes that the need for this longer-term effort will not be overlooked in the
understandable desire to provide near-term relief.
Second, the Committee also took note of the fact that the creation of an ongoing body to assess and
address airport noise issues in the three county area is in many respects essential to the successful
implementation of the Recommendations contained in this Report; and to addressing issues likely to
arise in the future.
Finally, this letter would be incomplete if it did not express thanks to the many who made this effort
possible and productive. That, of course, includes you, the three Members of Congress who empaneled
the Select Committee, and your staffs, who lent considerable support throughout the effort.
Thanks as well to the 12 Members of the Select Committee and their 12 Alternates. It should be noted
that in virtually every meeting of the Select Committee all 12 seats were filled; most often by the 12
Members of the Committee, but with exemplary service from their Alternates as needed.
At least two thirds of the Alternates participated in the process in some significant way, allowing the
Committee to be fully functioning throughout its six month tenure, and providing additional and
valuable expertise and perspective to the process.
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter to Members of Congress
November 17, 2016
Page 3
Technical support was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, whose staff was on hand at
each and every one of our three community meetings, 10 working meetings, and five technical briefings
to both listen and respond to questions.
As you well know, the process began with considerable public skepticism about the ability and
willingness of the FAA to engage in a meaningful way. I must tell you that the staff of the FAA was
exemplary in its persistence, patience, and professionalism throughout the process.
Special thanks to the City of Palo Alto for hosting the Committee’s 10 Working Meetings, and for the
considerable multimedia support that entailed as well.
But perhaps most importantly, thanks go to the members of the public who first raised these issues,
who organized to make themselves heard, who testified in great numbers (approximately 250 in our
first three Community Meetings, and approximately 130 at the subsequent Working Meeting of the
Committee set-aside for public comment), and whose written comments – in the form of comment
cards, letters, and emails – exceed more than 3,500 to date.
These various public communications were essential to informing the understanding of the Committee
as we crafted the Recommendations we now present to you.
Having conveyed these Recommendations to you, we now ask that you continue your engagement with
the FAA to ensure their timely implementation to the fullest extent practicable.
The Committee believes these Recommendations have the potential to provide real relief. We hope that
relief arrives sooner rather than later.
Sincerely,
S. Joseph Simitian
County Supervisor, Fifth District
Chair, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter – Attachment A
List of Members and Alternates, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Member Alternate
Supervisor Joe Simitian
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Mike Wasserman
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Councilmember Ann Wengert
Town of Portola Valley
Mayor Elizabeth Lewis
Town of Atherton
Councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald
City of Saratoga
Councilmember Jean Mordo
City of Los Altos
Vice Mayor Gary Waldeck
Town of Los Altos Hills
Vice Mayor Gregory Scharff
City of Palo Alto
Supervisor Bruce McPherson
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Mayor Donna Lind
City of Scotts Valley
Supervisor John Leopold
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
President George Purnell
Happy Valley School Board
Councilmember Don Lane
City of Santa Cruz
Mayor Cynthia Matthews
City of Santa Cruz
Mayor Ed Bottorff
City of Capitola
Councilmember Dennis Norton
City of Capitola
Supervisor Dave Pine
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Councilmember Jeffrey Gee
City of Redwood City
Mayor Mark Addiego
City of South San Francisco
Councilmember Bob Grassilli
City of San Carlos
Councilmember Sam Hindi
City of Foster City
Councilmember Peter Ohtaki
City of Menlo Park
Vice Mayor Larry Moody
City of East Palo Alto
Mayor Donna Rutherford
City of East Palo Alto
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Transmittal Letter – Attachment B
List of Meeting Dates, Times and Locations; Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Date Time Location
Organizational Meeting
May 6, 2016 2:00pm San Francisco International Airport
Community Meetings
May 25, 2016 6:00pm Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium
June 15, 2016 6:00pm Sequoia High School, Redwood City
June 29, 2016 6:00pm Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts
Working Meetings
July 15, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
July 22, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
August 4, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
August 18, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
September 1, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
September 29, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
October 13, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
October 27, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
Public Comment
November 3, 2016 2:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
November 17, 2016 1:00pm Palo Alto City Hall Council Chambers
Technical Briefings
May 20, 2016 1:00pm Teleconference
May 23, 2016 3:00pm Teleconference
October 13, 2016 10:00am Palo Alto City Hall, Council Conference Room
October 20, 2016 11:00am Teleconference
November 14, 2016 9:00am Teleconference
1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
GLOSSARY
Air Traffic Control (ATC): A service operated by the appropriate authority to promote the safe,
orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic.
Altitude MSL: Aircraft altitude measured in feet above mean sea level.
Arrival and Departure Procedures: Refers to a published procedure. Once the procedure is
assigned, the procedure is designed to be flown with minimal to no communication with Air Traffic
Control (ATC).
Decibel: In sound, decibels measure a scale from the threshold of human hearing, 0 dB, upward
towards the threshold of pain, about 120-140 dB. Because decibels are such a small measure, they
are computed logarithmically and cannot be added arithmetically.
Day Night Sound Level (DNL): DNL is a measure of the annual average noise in a 24-hour day.
It is the 24-hour, logarithmic- (or energy-) average, A-weighted sound pressure level with a 10-
decibel penalty applied to the nighttime events that occur between 10:00pm and 7:00am.
DNL Contour: The "map" of noise exposure around an airport. FAA defines significant noise
exposure as any area within the 65dB DNL contour; that is the area within an annual average noise
exposure of 65 decibels or higher.
Fixes: In aviation, a fix is a virtual navigational point that helps aircraft maintain their flight path.
Fix is a generic name often interchanged with waypoint or intersection.
Fleet Mix: The mix of differing aircraft types operated at a particular airport or by an airline.
Frequency Weightings: Used to allow a sound level meter to measure and report noise levels that
represent what humans hear. These are electronic filters within a sound level meter that are used
to adjust the way in which the instrument measures the noise. The most commonly used Frequency
Weightings are ‘A’, ‘C’ and ‘Z.’DNL incorporates only “A” weighted decibels.
Glide Slope: Generally a 3-degree angle of approach to a runway. Provides vertical guidance for
aircraft during approach and landing.
Ground Track: The path an aircraft flies over the ground.
Hold Procedure (Holding): A predetermined maneuver which keeps aircraft within a specified
airspace while awaiting further clearance from ATC.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight.
2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
NextGen: An encompassing term for the ongoing, wide-ranging transformation of the United
States' national airspace system. It has sometimes been described as an evolution from a ground-
based system of air traffic control to a satellite-based system of air traffic management.
Optimized Profile Descent (OPD): An arrival procedure that is designed to allow aircraft to use
idle engine power and reduce level-offs during descent.
Procedures, general: A published, standardized set of instructions that an aircraft can fly with
minimal input from ATC. Procedures are designed with strict separation criteria from other
procedures.
Runway: A long strip of land or water used by aircraft to land on or to take off from. For aircraft
arriving to San Francisco International Airport, the primary Runways used are Runway 28 Right
(28R) and 28 Left (28L), which are parallel to each other.
Sequencing: The lining up of aircraft into a single flow by ATC so that all aircraft are separated to
appropriate criteria. This is normally mentioned in association with landing.
Standard Instrument Departure (SID): A published IFR departure procedure from an airport
printed for pilot/controller use in graphic form to provide obstacle clearance.
Speed Brakes: Moveable aerodynamic devices on aircraft that reduce airspeed during descent and
landing.
Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR): A published IFR arrival procedure to an airport printed
for pilot/controller use in graphic form.
Time Based Flow Management: TBFM uses time instead of distance to help air traffic controllers
sequence air traffic by directing aircraft to be at a specific location at a specific time, which
optimizes arrival flow.
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON): FAA air traffic facility that uses radar and non-
radar capabilities to provide approach control services to aircraft arriving, departing, or transiting
airspace controlled by the facility.
Vector: A heading issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar; i.e., a series of
instructions from ATC directing an aircraft between two end points.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual
conditions. The term “VFR” is also used to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater
than the minimum VFR requirements.
Waypoint: A waypoint is a predetermined reference point in physical space used for purposes of
navigation. It is also known as a fix.
3
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
1. Minimizing aircraft noise must be a priority of the FAA when designing procedures, and
of Air Traffic Control (ATC) when vectoring flights. Airline efficiency may have to be
compromised to some degree to minimize noise exposure on the ground.
2. Aircraft noise should not be an afterthought in FAA planning and operations; nor should
aircraft noise be moved randomly without regard to the relative noise burden experienced
by communities below. A small number of communities should not be disproportionately
affected when there are ways to avoid or disperse aircraft noise.
3. Reducing aircraft noise at night is an urgent priority. Given the availability of airspace in
the nighttime hours, it should be an extremely rare occurrence that a flight path is disruptive
to the community. Further, “nighttime” should be defined as 12 midnight to 6:00am, but
should be expanded to include the hours of 11:00pm-12:00am and 6:00am-7:00am
whenever possible.
4. When designing new procedures, the FAA must include affected communities as
stakeholders. Aircraft noise not only disrupts quality of life but also has significant and
well documented adverse impacts on the health and well-being of individuals residing
under flight paths, particularly children.
5. No matter how effectively the airspace, or any specific procedure, is re-designed, the value
of the change will only be as helpful as the extent to which it is followed. ATC should
adhere to published procedures except when safety considerations require vectoring. The
rate of adherence to published procedures should be monitored.
6. Meaningful metrics for measuring aircraft noise should be used when working with the
Committee’s Recommendations. Limiting the metrics to use of DNL is inadequate and
unacceptable. A baseline of aircraft noise should also be established. The recent agreement
between the FAA and the Massachusetts Port Authority (which owns and operates three
airports: Boston Logan International Airport; Hanscom Field; and Worcester Regional
Airport), to use real-world single-event noise data from communities in order to develop a
supplemental noise metric to measure and track noise and flight concentration is a
development the Committee supports and points to as an example of a meaningful metric.
7. Reducing the noise impacts caused by NextGen should be a priority.
8. The FAA should demonstrate its ongoing commitment to working with communities
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, including, but not limited to, the three counties
represented on the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, by: (a) monitoring resultant
noise levels following implementation of Recommendations from the Select Committee;
(b) participating with successor committees to the Select Committee; and (c) leading all
future procedural, waypoint, and flight path development activities undertaken in response
to continuing health and noise issues associated with local air traffic in consultation with
the affected communities.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
4
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 1: FAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE, FEASIBILITY GROUPS 1
THROUGH 6
In November 2015, the “FAA Initiative to Address Noise Related Concerns in Santa Cruz/Santa
Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties” was released. Known as the Northern California
Initiative, or NorCal Initiative, it included a number of proposed technical solutions that were
brought to the FAA to analyze, study, and/or evaluate. On May 16, 2016, the results of Phase 1 of
the NorCal Initiative was released, consisting of a Feasibility Study (Study) of the proposed
technical solutions. The FAA then grouped the solutions deemed feasible into six groups, as
discussed further below in Section 1 of this Report.
1.1 Feasibility Group 1: SFO Class B Amendment
Class B airspace is the restricted airspace around the nation’s busiest commercial airports designed
to ensure a higher level of safety for aircraft landing at the airport. It can be visualized as an upside
down wedding cake. The airport is at the center of the cake topper with the airspace reaching to
10,000 feet over the airport in a series of concentric circles. To the south, SFO’s Class B airspace
reaches roughly to the junction of Summit Road/Skyline Boulevard/Highway 17 (approximately
35 miles from SFO) in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The FAA has advised the Committee that there is an identified problem in that the SFO Class B
airspace, as currently configured, does not fully provide containment of the entire flight path (the
so called “SERFR procedure”), which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz
Mountains (see Appendix C, Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). As a result, aircraft are required
to “level off” to stay within the airspace (or “cake”). Leveling off, however, means aircraft are
taken off their Optimized Profile Descent (OPD), or idle descent to final approach. This change in
glide path requires aircraft to use speed brakes, increase thrust, or take other actions which in turn
generate more noise. This leveling off is presently occurring just off the Capitola coastline (near
the point in space known as the EPICK waypoint), as well as over the Mid-Peninsula.
Feasibility Group 1 contains proposals to amend the SFO Class B airspace to fully contain the
SERFR procedure by altering the size or shape of the airspace (or the size or shape of the cake
layers) to keep aircraft inside the airspace (or cake) and on their OPD. Once the SFO Class B is
amended, the expectation is that more flights will fully execute an OPD and no longer need to
make altitude and speed adjustments, thereby reducing the noise exposure near the Capitola
coastline (i.e., the EPICK waypoint) and over the Mid-Peninsula.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 1.
Additionally, any changes to the SFO Class B airspace to fully contain the
SERFR procedure should also allow OPD arrivals on any other arrival
procedure from the south that might replace, or supplement, the SERFR
procedure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 1 encompasses seven of the items in the Study: 1.d.i; 1.d.ii;
2.b.i; 2.c.iii; 2.d.ii; and, 3.d.ii.
5
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.2 Feasibility Group 2: Transition the SERFR Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR)
Back to the BSR Ground Track Prior to EPICK
Feasibility Group 2 contains proposals to move the arrival procedure from the south, back west to
a similar ground track previously used for the BSR procedure. This design would put the SERFR
flight path back over the BSR ground track, roughly 3-4 miles to the west of where the path
currently reaches the Santa Cruz County coastline (near the City of Capitola) (see Appendix C,
Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). However, it should be noted that even with a “return to the
BSR ground track,” aircraft would not actually fly the same conventional procedure as the previous
BSR. The BSR procedure predated NextGen and did not use satellite-based navigation. NextGen
uses satellite navigation and Optimal Profile Descents (OPD). These Optimal Profile Descents
include some waypoints with an altitude control “window” providing a range of altitudes (from
lowest to highest; e.g., 7,000 feet to 9,000 feet) that aircraft must be within when crossing the
waypoint. In addition, and speaking generally, the pre-NextGen flights were relatively dispersed
as compared to present-day NextGen procedures which consolidate, to a greater degree, flights
along a narrower path.
The FAA has advised the Committee that a new flight procedure that is GPS-based and that
contains an OPD could be designed to fly the old BSR ground track, as suggested in the proposals
in Feasibility Group 2.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that arrivals into SFO from the south use
the BSR ground track for a new NextGen procedure that incorporates the
criteria contained in Recommendation 2 below.
(Vote: __8__ Aye, __4__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the new NextGen procedure for arrivals
into SFO from the south be implemented as soon as feasible and include the
following criteria:
1. Results in noise modeling of the proposed new procedure that has an
equivalent or less DNL noise exposure along its entire route when compared
to the noise modeling of the BSR 2014 procedure;
2. Uses flight altitudes at least as high as (and preferably higher) than the
historic BSR procedure along its entire route;
3. Starts from a point over the Monterey Bay and reaches the shoreline at an
altitude no lower than 12,500 feet mean sea level;
4. Utilizes a new BSR waypoint equivalent to the EDDYY waypoint at or
above 6,000 feet to ensure flights cross the MENLO waypoint at or above
5,000 feet and maintain idle power until the HEMAN waypoint;
5. Prioritizes and adheres as closely as possible to an OPD terminating at the
HEMAN waypoint;
6. Incorporates a modification to Class B airspace if needed;
7. Uses flight altitudes that are as high as possible while still allowing idle
power flight;
8. Is designed to avoid the use of speed brakes; and,
6
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
9. Will be subject to future capacity limitations, particularly during nighttime
hours and when vectoring exceeds current levels.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that within three months of completing
implementation of the new procedure described in Recommendations 1 and 2
above, the FAA will meet with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee referred to in Item
3.1, Recommendation 1, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address
Aircraft Noise Mitigation) to review whether the new procedure has resulted in
an equivalent or less DNL noise exposure along its entire route when compared
to 2014 noise modeling of the BSR procedure. The permanent entity referred to
in Item 3.1, Recommendation 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to
Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation) will continue to monitor the implementation
of the new procedure. The Committee further recommends that the FAA work
with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, the permanent entity, and the affected
communities to make adjustments to the new procedure, if needed, to reduce its
noise exposure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 4: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA, in consultation with the
permanent entity and the community, search for and develop a new flight
procedure for arrivals into SFO from the south that: (a) meets each of the criteria
in Recommendation 2 above; (b) takes maximum advantage of areas of non-
residential use, such as unpopulated mountainous areas, industrial areas,
parkland, cemeteries, etc; and (c) reduces noise exposure to the maximum
extent possible. The Committee further recommends that this procedure be
implemented as soon as feasible; however, the Committee recognizes that it
will take considerably longer to implement than the procedure referenced in
Recommendations 1 and 2 above.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 2 encompasses two of the items in the Study: 1.f.i and 3.d.ii.
7
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.3 Feasibility Group 3: Increasing Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE
Until at Least the NIITE Waypoint
Feasibility Group 3 applies to nighttime operations on the NIITE procedure (which does not
include all flights at night). These flights depart SFO over the San Francisco Bay (Bay), reach the
NIITE waypoint in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then turn to the northeast to fly out of the Bay
Area over several East Bay communities (see Appendix C, Page C2: Map of NIITE). About 35
percent of NIITE flights are currently turning early. Because the flights turn earlier, they are at a
lower altitude when they turn; and consequently may generate more noise exposure on the ground.
Feasibility Group 3 contains proposals to increase the percentage of these eastbound NIITE flights
that remain on the path until reaching the waypoint, thereby reducing early turns which cross land
at lower, noisier altitudes. The FAA has advised the Committee that the result should be less noise
exposure for some East Bay communities; such change, however, is not expected to provide
benefit to residents in the three-county area served by the Committee. The Committee’s
understanding is that the proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route more arrival
traffic over the BDEGA East leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the middle of the
night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 3.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 3 encompasses five of the items in the Study: 2.a.ii.a; 2.a.ii.c;
2.g.ii; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
1.4 Feasibility Group 4: Create a New South Transition for the NIITE Standard
Instrument Departure (SID)
Feasibility Group 4 also applies to nighttime operations on the NIITE procedure (which does not
include all flights at night). These flights depart SFO over the San Francisco Bay (Bay), reach the
NIITE waypoint in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then turn to the northeast to fly out of the Bay
Area over several East Bay communities (see Appendix C, Page C2: Map of NIITE). The NIITE
procedure does not provide a path for nighttime departures headed to southern destinations.
Currently, nighttime SFO departures headed to southern destinations use the SSTIK departure
procedure. These nighttime operations on the SSTIK departure procedure depart SFO over the San
Francisco Bay (Bay) to the northeast and quickly loop back around over the Peninsula
communities of Brisbane, San Bruno, and South San Francisco to head to southern destinations.
Because flights currently departing on the SSTIK procedure make a quick loop from the Bay down
over the Peninsula, they do so with related noise exposure for the Peninsula communities below.
A number of these communities have asked if other flight paths might be explored.
Feasibility Group 4 proposes that nighttime SSTIK departures use the NIITE procedure up to the
NIITE waypoint, which is in the Bay north of the Bay Bridge, then the aircraft would head west
out over the Golden Gate Bridge. By keeping the SSTIK departures over the Bay and Pacific
8
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Ocean, the aircraft are able to gain altitude over unpopulated areas. As a result, when they are
eventually flying over the San Francisco Peninsula on their way to southern destinations they will
do so at a higher altitude (and will thus be quieter). The Committee’s understanding is that the
proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route more arrival traffic over BDEGA East
leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the middle of the night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 4.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 4 encompasses six of the items in the Study: 1.f.iii; 2.a.ii.a;
2.f.i; 2.g.ii; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
1.5 Feasibility Group 5: Increasing Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on
CNDEL Until at Least the CNDEL Waypoint
The CNDEL is a departure procedure from the Oakland International Airport, with aircraft heading
northwest over the San Francisco Bay (Bay) to the CNDEL waypoint which is located off the
northwesterly end of Alameda Island (see Appendix C, Page C3: Map of CNDEL). Under the
current procedure/path, aircraft reach the waypoint and then turn west and south over Brisbane and
South San Francisco. Sixty percent of the CNDEL departures are currently turned before the
CNDEL waypoint. This means they reach the San Francisco Peninsula sooner and at lower
altitudes. These turns are due to spacing and sequencing the CNDEL aircraft with other departing
aircraft in the Bay Area airspace.
Feasibility Group 5 contains proposals to increase the percentage of CNDEL departures that stay
on the procedure longer and do not turn prior to the CNDEL waypoint, thereby reducing the
number turning before the CNDEL waypoint and crossing land at lower, noisier altitudes. The
Committee’s understanding is that the proposed change would not limit the FAA’s ability to route
more arrival traffic over BDEGA East leg (including, for instance, OCEANIC arrivals in the
middle of the night).
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 5 with the
goal of having 100 percent of CNDEL departures stay on the procedure longer
and not turn prior to the CNDEL waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 5 encompasses eight of the items in the Study: 1.a.ii; 1.b.i;
1.b.ii; 1.c.ii; 2.a.ii.a; 2.a.ii.b; 3.d.i; and, 3.d.ii.
9
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
1.6 Feasibility Group 6: Improve Aircraft Set Up and Sequencing Between Facilities
Aircraft are sequenced to ensure they arrive on the final approach course safely and at repeated
intervals allowing for airport operational efficiency. Existing metering tools aid in this air traffic
management, but aircraft “vectoring” (turning aircraft off the assigned procedure) and “holding”
(a maneuver designed to delay an aircraft already in flight while keeping it within a specified
airspace) affect a substantial number of flights, especially in congested airspaces such as the San
Francisco Bay Area. Vectoring also is a source of noise; it often involves aircraft turning and
changes in speed, with increased noise exposure on affected communities.
Feasibility Group 6 contains proposals to use new, more effective, time-based flow management
tools currently in development to allow for better sequencing (i.e., spacing) of aircraft to reduce
the percentage of aircraft that are vectored or held prior to the final approach path to SFO. New
metering tools are not an immediately available fix; however, the technology to create Terminal
Sequencing and Spacing (TSS), or Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM), is in development. In
the future, the expectation is that such technological advances will allow for aircraft flows to be
taken into account and assigned an order well in advance of final approach. The benefit of such
technological advances are two-fold: (1) reduced percentage of vectored or turned aircraft and
related noise exposure; and (2) greater ability to leave aircraft on Optimized Profile Descent
(OPD), with an idle descent that is quieter.
The Select Committee hopes that the FAA will support the implementation of TSS or TBFM even
if that means delaying some take-offs at the airport of origin. When implementing TSS or TBFM,
the FAA should use it to relieve the concentration of flights over impacted communities (as
opposed to increasing flights in so-called noise corridors). In particular, TSS or TBFM should be
used to reduce vectoring in the area of the MENLO waypoint.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends adoption of Feasibility Group 6.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Technical Note: Feasibility Group 6 encompasses five of the items in the Study: 3.b.i; 3.b.ii;
3.c.i; 3.c.ii; and, 3.d.ii.
10
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 2: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
In the course of the Select Committee’s deliberations, a number of additional potential solutions
were identified. Each of these proposed “Other Potential Solutions” is discussed further below.
2.1 Airbus A320 Aircraft Family Wake Vortex Generators Retrofit
Airbus’s A320 family of aircraft built before 2014 makes a whistling (or whining) sound on
approach due to wing design. The Committee was advised that the whistle (whine) can be reduced
by mounting a small air deflector on each wing. The cost of such technology is reportedly modest
($3,000-$5,000 per aircraft). The noise reduction from the retrofit has been claimed to be from
between 2 to 11 decibels depending on the phase of flight and angle of the aircraft along the
approach. Roughly 35 percent of the aircraft arriving and departing SFO need the retrofit.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that the Airbus family aircraft arriving or
departing SFO undergo the retrofit at the earliest possible opportunity. The
Committee takes notes of the fact that one major airline flying into and out of
SFO has proposed to retrofit its fleet over the next 2-3 years. While the
commitment to retrofit is welcome news, the Committee finds that the time
period is unnecessarily and unacceptably long.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO
SFO arrivals from points north arrive via the BDEGA arrival procedure/path. Arriving aircraft
reach a point roughly over Daly City and then continue south flying past SFO, using either the
Peninsula (the so-called West leg) or San Francisco Bay (the so-called East leg), to essentially
make a U-turn and land on Runways 28L and 28R, respectively (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map
of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). The FAA has advised the Committee that the
BDEGA East leg shares the final approach path into SFO with aircraft arriving from the east on
the DYAMD arrival procedure. Aircraft using the East leg, or over-the-bay route, obviously have
a dramatically reduced noise exposure versus aircraft using the West leg, which fly over the highly
populated Mid-Peninsula.
In years past, there was a roughly equal split of aircraft using the West and East legs of the BDEGA
arrival procedure/path. The FAA has advised the Committee that ten years ago, in May 2006, the
“split” between the two legs was 52 percent West leg and 48 percent East leg. In May 2016,
roughly 70 percent of the arriving aircraft used the Peninsula (the so-called West leg), while
roughly 30 percent of arriving aircraft used the San Francisco Bay (the so-called East leg). This
overutilization of the Peninsula or West leg negatively affects the highly populated Mid-Peninsula
communities.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that aircraft flying on the BDEGA
procedure utilize the so-called East leg (over the San Francisco Bay) as much
as possible, in order to minimize noise over the Peninsula. The Committee
11
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
further recommends that the FAA assess the potential of formalizing this
procedure so that it is more likely to be used.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee recommends that all aircraft flying on the BDEGA
procedure during nighttime hours, when air traffic flows are reduced, use the
East leg, unless safety considerations prohibit such a flight path.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon)
Aircraft fly in the vicinity of the Woodside VOR, a ground-based navigational aid, to arrive at
SFO. Aircraft activity in this area includes aircraft arrivals from numerous origin points, including
but not limited to OCEANIC arrivals, which come in from the west from overseas (See Appendix
C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
Based on discussions between and among SFO, the FAA, the SFO Airport/Community
Roundtable, and local elected officials, a new noise abatement procedure was implemented at the
Woodside VOR in July 1998. Pursuant to this procedure, for those flights routed over the
Woodside navigational beacon, “traffic permitting,” air traffic controllers shall clear SFO
OCEANIC arrivals to cross the Woodside VOR at or above 8,000 feet mean sea level.
The Committee received numerous reports from the community that this agreement is not currently
honored. There are reports of aircraft flying over the Woodside VOR at altitudes appreciably lower
than 8,000 feet, including at night when residents are particularly sensitive to noise. The
Committee also found that there is an authorized Ocean Tailored Arrival (OTA), which
specifically allows arriving OCEANIC aircraft to be at or above the Woodside VOR at 6,000 feet.
This OTA is also used in the overnight hours when residents are particularly sensitive to noise.
The FAA has advised the Committee that while OCEANIC flights represent just four percent of
the daytime traffic arriving into SFO, OCEANIC flights represent thirty-six percent of the flights
arriving at SFO at nighttime.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that per the current noise abatement
procedure, aircraft comply with the obligation to cross the Woodside VOR at
8,000 feet mean sea level, traffic permitting. The Committee further
recommends that this altitude restriction, to the greatest extent possible and
traffic permitting, also be applicable to all vectored flights that are in the
vicinity of the Woodside VOR.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee recommends revision of the Woodside VOR Ocean
Tailored Arrival to honor the existing noise abatement procedure to cross the
Woodside VOR at 8,000 feet.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
12
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Recommendation 3: The Select Committee recommends further restrictions to prohibit any
overnight crossings at the Woodside VOR below 8,000 feet.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.4 Overnight Flights
Reducing noise at night is an urgent priority. Between midnight and 6:00am the number of flights
into and out of SFO is significantly reduced. As a result, there is considerable potential for aircraft
to be rerouted over unpopulated or less populated areas, specifically the San Francisco Bay and
Pacific Ocean, instead of the San Francisco Peninsula.
Currently the management of SFO implements a number of overnight noise abatement procedures
that are beneficial to the communities surrounding SFO. These procedures include, but are not
limited to, prohibitions on “run-ups” of mounted aircraft engines for maintenance or test purposes
between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am daily with limited exceptions and the use of auxiliary
power units when aircraft are parked at the gate.
Separately, SFO also employs Nighttime Preferential Runway Use, which maximizes flights over
water and minimizes flights over land and populated areas between 1:00am and 6:00am.
As discussed elsewhere in this Report, the Select Committee has made a number of additional
Recommendations to mitigate in-flight aircraft noise during the night, including: Item 1.3
Increasing the Percentage of NIITE Flights Which Remain on NIITE Until at Least the NIITE
Waypoint; Item 1.4 Create a New South Transition for the NIITE SID; Item 1.5 Increasing
Percentage of CNDEL Flights Which Remain on CNDEL Until at Least the CNDEL Waypoint;
Item 2.2 Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO; Item 2.3 Woodside VOR (Navigational Beacon);
Item 2.8 Increase All Altitudes; Item 2.10 Runway Usage; and, Item 2.14 Redirect Southern
Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO).
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that all efforts be made to reduce in-flight
aircraft noise over populated areas during “nighttime” hours when residents
need a reprieve from aircraft noise so that they can sleep, including, but not
limited to, the Recommendations made elsewhere in this Report. For purposes
of this Report, “nighttime” should be defined as 12:00am to 6:00am, but should
be expanded to include the hours of 11:00pm-12:00am and 6:00am-7:00am
whenever possible.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that during “nighttime” hours, air traffic control
make every effort to direct arrivals into a single stream to Runway 28R to
reduce the noise exposure on the bayside communities of Redwood City and
Foster City.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
13
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the FAA, SFO, and industry users continue
their efforts to establish new additional overnight noise abatement procedures
within the next six months. This work should be done in consultation with other
relevant stakeholders.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.5 MENLO Waypoint
The MENLO waypoint is located several city blocks south of the intersection of Willow Road and
Highway 101. It is the final waypoint on the SERFR arrival procedure/path, which is an arrival
procedure into SFO from the south that approaches the airport from the Santa Cruz Mountains
(See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). Aircraft on the
SERFR arrival procedure/path then cross the MENLO waypoint to join the final approach path
into SFO. The altitude of the MENLO waypoint is currently 4,000 feet. Given its location over a
highly populated area, the location and altitude of the MENLO waypoint are problematic and a
source of many community complaints.
The FAA has advised the Committee that in June 2016, an average of 183 aircraft arrived each
day into SFO on the SERFR procedure/path, representing 30 percent of the arrivals into SFO. The
FAA has also advised the Committee that currently 50 percent of the aircraft on the SERFR arrival
procedure/path are vectored off the procedure/path prior to the MENLO waypoint. As discussed
in Item 2.9 in this Report (Aircraft Vectoring), the vectored SERFR aircraft are eventually
sequenced for merging onto the final approach into SFO. The FAA has also suggested that the
Committee take note of the fact that there are other aircraft in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint
that are not related to the SERFR arrival procedure/path. These “other aircraft,” the FAA pointed
out, represent 85 percent of the aircraft in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint.
With all this in mind, it has been suggested that the altitude of the crossing at the MENLO waypoint
be increased. It has also been suggested that a different final waypoint be established for the
SERFR procedure, located to the east and/or north of the current MENLO waypoint (presumably
over a less populated area and at a higher altitude). This suggestion could involve establishment
of a new waypoint, or the use of existing waypoints, such as the ROKME or DUMBA waypoints.
These waypoints are located in the San Francisco Bay, just to the north and south of the eastern
shoreline of the Dumbarton Bridge, respectively. Under this suggestion, aircraft would cross at
one of these waypoints, which would be at a higher altitude as compared to the current altitude at
the MENLO waypoint, before joining the final approach into SFO.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the altitude of flights over the
MENLO waypoint be 5,000 feet or higher.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the FAA design a new procedure for arrivals
into SFO from the south using the MENLO waypoint. The recommended
procedure would cross the EDDYY waypoint (or equivalent) above 6,000 feet,
continue at idle power to cross the MENLO waypoint at or above 5,000 feet,
14
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
and maintain idle power until the HEMAN waypoint (or other ILS 28L
interception point). Such a procedure should also be designed to avoid the use
of drag devices such as speed brakes.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 3: The Committee further recommends that all air traffic in the vicinity of the
MENLO waypoint (including vectored traffic from other procedures) be kept
at altitudes equivalent to those in Recommendation 1 above, even if not crossing
directly over the MENLO waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 4: In order to facilitate Recommendations 1 and 2 above, the FAA should review
whether the angle of the 28L glide slope can be increased in order to increase
the altitude at the HEMAN waypoint, or equivalent.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 5: Finally, the Committee recommends that the FAA assess the feasibility of
establishing a different waypoint for entry to the final approach into SFO on the
SERFR arrival procedure (or any procedure that may replace it for arrivals from
the south). A different waypoint could be established and located either to the
east and/or north of MENLO, or by using existing waypoints FAITH, ROKME,
or DUMBA. The new waypoint should be at a location that allows flight over
compatible land uses (i.e., over water or sparsely populated land masses) and at
a high enough altitude to ensure noise exposure of approaching aircraft is
minimized. The Committee acknowledges that this Recommendation
potentially involves working with stakeholders to revise the San Jose
International Airport Class C airspace to maintain safety clearance
requirements if the FAITH or ROKME waypoint options are pursued.
The Select Committee does not recommend that a different final waypoint be
established for the SERFR procedure (or any procedure that may replace it
for arrivals from the south), either through the establishment of a new
waypoint or by using an existing waypoint, if such an action simply results in
“noise shifting.”
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
15
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.6 Raise the Floor of Altitude Control Windows on SERFR
An altitude control window at a waypoint provides a range of altitudes (from lowest to highest;
e.g., 7,000 feet to 9,000 feet) that aircraft must be within when crossing the waypoint. The FAA
has advised the Committee that the range of altitudes is provided because the aircraft fleet mix
varies. The last leg of SERFR has only one altitude control window, at waypoint EPICK (just
offshore from Capitola on the Santa Cruz County coast) with a range of 10,000 feet to 15,000 feet
(See Appendix C, Page C1: Map of BSR and SERFR). By reducing the size of that window by
2,000 feet, so that its range is 12,000 feet to 15,000 feet, aircraft would be at a higher altitude when
crossing the EPICK waypoint.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA decrease the size of the
altitude windows on the SERFR procedure or path so that aircraft crossing
EPICK do so at a higher altitude.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: It is suggested that the arrival procedure for SERFR, or any subsequent route
in this sub-region, be designed, if possible, to allow aircraft to reduce speed
early, while over the Monterey Bay; beginning their Optimized Profile Descent
into the Santa Cruz area and beyond in a fashion that affects fewer people.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.7 Increase the Altitude and Profile of Descents into SFO
An approach slope is the descent path that aircraft follow on final approach to land on a runway.
An approach slope is also known as a glide slope, as the path is ideally a gentle downward slope.
A commonly used approach slope in modern aviation is 3.0 degrees from the horizontal.
At SFO, the two main landing runways are 28L and 28R, and they are parallel to each other.
Runway 28L has a glide slope of 2.85 degrees, while Runway 28R has a glide slope of 3.0 degrees.
The variation in the glide slopes is a function of the two runways being parallel to each other.
Other airports use a steeper glide slope. For instance, the Frankfurt airport is using 3.2 degrees
while London City airport uses a glide slope of 5.5 degrees.
If the glide slope on both Runways 28L and 28R at SFO were increased, even if only by 0.15
degrees each, it would allow descending aircraft to begin their descent at a higher altitude, thereby
reducing noise exposure on the ground.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA determine the feasibility of
increasing the glide slopes of SFO Runways 28R and 28L to the maximum
extent consistent with safety and the Committee’s goal of noise mitigation.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
16
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.8 Increase All Altitudes
Aircraft noise is noise pollution produced by any aircraft or its components. The noise is generated
during the various phases of a flight, such as when the aircraft is: (a) on the ground while parked
using auxiliary power units; (b) while taxiing; (c) during takeoff; (d) while over-flying enroute;
and (e) during landing. Aircraft noise is also generated both underneath and lateral to departure
and arrival paths. This latter form of aircraft noise has been the primary source of complaints since
the March 2015 implementation of NextGen. At the risk of stating the obvious, the higher the
altitude of departure and arrival paths, the quieter the experience is on the ground. Or, in other
words, aircraft at higher altitudes tend to be quieter.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that to the greatest extent possible, while
still ensuring the safety of the aircraft, that the altitude be increased for all flight
procedures/paths into and out of SFO.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.9 Aircraft Vectoring
Vectoring is assigned verbally by FAA air traffic controllers, and generally involves turning
aircraft off the assigned procedure/flight path. Vectoring of SFO arrivals over the Mid-Peninsula
is common and principally generated from three sources: (1) arrivals from the north (BDEGA);
(2) to a lesser degree, overseas arrivals from the west (OCEANIC); and (3) the roughly 50 percent
of the arrivals from the south (SERFR) that are currently vectored off the SERFR procedure/path
(See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD). These arriving
aircraft are vectored to properly sequence them for merging onto the final approach into SFO. It
should be noted that while noise generated by vectoring in the first two instances (i.e., BDEGA
and OCEANIC) occurs in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint, the location of these operations
is unrelated to the presence of the MENLO waypoint, as discussed further in Item 2.5 in this Report
(MENLO Waypoint).
Vectoring can be a source of substantial noise. If the vectoring directive from Air Traffic Control
to the pilot includes a change in speed, a turn, and/or an altitude restriction, an increase in noise is
a likely result. On the other hand, if the vectoring directive is unrestricted, with the pilot not being
given a speed or altitude restriction, it is unlikely that noise will result. The FAA has advised the
Committee that vectoring is done for safety reasons, and that the specific directive provided is
dependent on the variables present. Consequently, according to the FAA, it is not predictable what
the noise exposure will be from vectoring.
Yet, vectoring is the source of many of the noise complaints presented to the Committee by the
community. This is due in part because the aircraft vectoring over the Mid-Peninsula do so at low
altitudes. In addition, the topography of the Mid-Peninsula is uneven. To further complicate the
matter, while some members of the community have complained that vectoring is a source of noise,
others warn that efforts to keep greater numbers of aircraft on the established flight paths
concentrates even greater amounts of noise on those who live or work under the established flight
track (this is the issue some advocates refer to as “sacrificial noise corridors”). So, if you vector,
17
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
you create noise over a relatively wide area; if you don’t, you concentrate a greater amount of
noise on a relative few (a smaller number) who are already heavily burdened.
It has been suggested that the altitude at which aircraft are vectored over the Peninsula be
increased, to reduce the noise exposure experienced on the ground. It should be noted, however,
that the FAA has advised the Committee that increases in the altitude of the BDEGA West leg
vectored aircraft could require the aircraft to fly somewhat further south, in order to safely descend
and make the U-turn to join the final approach into SFO.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA identify locations that have
the most compatible land uses for vectoring, such as over the Pacific Ocean or
San Francisco Bay, and vector the SFO arriving air traffic in those locations to
reduce noise exposure experienced on the ground.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the FAA raise vectoring altitudes to
maximum feasible altitudes over the Mid-Peninsula, with a focus on higher
altitudes in the vicinity of the MENLO waypoint.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.10 Runway Usage
SFO operates on two sets of parallel runways that intersect midfield at a ninety-degree angle.
Approximately 83 percent of the time aircraft depart on either Runway 01L (left) or 01R (right)
and arrive on either Runway 28L (left) or 28R (right). Under this flow of traffic, SFO’s acceptance
rate for arriving traffic is 60 aircraft per hour. This arrival rate can be accommodated because with
good visibility and weather, aircraft land side-by-side on Runways 28L and 28R as the pilots are
able to see the other aircraft arriving on the parallel runway and can maintain visual separation.
The arriving traffic to Runway 28L is closer to the western edge of the San Francisco Bay (Bay),
proximate to the bayside communities of Redwood City and Foster City. Runway 28R is farther
removed from those communities. Greater use of Runway 28R has a reduced noise exposure for
these bayside communities; however, the FAA advised the Committee that, for the most efficient
operations at SFO (i.e., accommodating the greatest number of aircraft), Runways 28L and 28R
are used simultaneously.
As detailed in this Report (Item 2.4 Overnight Flights), during the overnight hours the overall
amount of air traffic is dramatically reduced. It has been suggested that, to the extent possible, 100
percent of nighttime flights should be directed by Air Traffic Control (ATC) in a single stream to
Runway 28R to reduce the noise exposure on the communities of Redwood City and Foster City.
It has also been suggested that regardless of the time of day, and when conditions permit
(including, but not limited to, the number of operations), ATC should direct aircraft to use Runway
28R. This includes use of the “noise friendlier” offset approach, which takes aircraft farther into
the Bay before joining the final approach to SFO. Use of the offset approach not only benefits
18
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Foster City and Redwood City, but because aircraft are joining the final approach farther into the
Bay, it could allow for higher altitudes while the aircraft are crossing over the Mid-Peninsula area.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that all feasible measures be taken to
reduce the noise exposure to bayside communities, including Foster City and
Redwood City, by directing air traffic to Runway 28R whenever possible.
During the important overnight hours, every effort should be made to create a
single stream of traffic, and to assign that traffic, safety permitting, to fly a
“noise friendlier” offset approach to Runway 28R.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.11 Modify BRIXX Procedure into San Jose International Airport
The BRIXX arrival is an arrival procedure/path from the north into San Jose International Airport
(SJC) which runs down the Peninsula, roughly over La Honda and Boulder Creek before turning
and flying south and then turning east and north (essentially a big U-turn) to join the final approach
into SJC (See Appendix C, Page C5: Map of BRIXX). The BRIXX path intersects with the SERFR
arrival path (which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains), roughly just
to the north of Mount McPherson in the Santa Cruz mountains.
The FAA has advised the Committee that, under NextGen, BRIXX basically overlaid a
predecessor path, which was named GOLDN. The change to a satellite based navigation flight
path, as opposed to the prior ground track flight path, resulted in the BRIXX arrival path becoming
more concentrated; with vectoring moving southward, and moving closer to the designated flight
path. The FAA further advised the Committee that roughly 76 percent of the BRIXX flights are
vectored or turned off the path prior to the point where BRIXX intersects with SERFR. These
changes resulted in complaints from residents in affected communities.
It has been suggested that these complaints be addressed by: (1) moving the intersection of BRIXX
and SERFR farther to the north and east, potentially to waypoint EDDYY, which is located roughly
over the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve; and (2) increasing the altitude of BRIXX so
that it is above the altitude of the SERFR arrival path.
The FAA has advised the Committee that these potential solutions raise a number of concerns.
First, moving the flight path as suggested potentially moves noise further into the already impacted
Mid-Peninsula area and places arriving aircraft at too high of an altitude too close to SJC. In order
for those aircraft to safely land, the aircraft would have to fly even further south to make the
necessary turn to the east and the north to join the final approach into SJC, potentially resulting in
new noise exposure. Increasing the altitude of BRIXX also potentially limits the FAA’s ability to
consider other potential solutions the Select Committee might advance, such as raising the altitude
on SERFR.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that, following implementation of changes
to the current arrival route for aircraft from southern destinations, the FAA shall
consider a new BRIXX procedure that maintains the highest possible altitude
19
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
at the point where it (BRIXX) intersects the new arrival route from the south.
The FAA should make every attempt to raise the altitude high enough such that
the DNL under the new intersection (where BRIXX and new arrival route from
the south) is lower than the DNL under the current intersection (where BRIXX
and the current SERFR route cross). The FAA shall review any proposed new
BRIXX procedure with any successor committee as recommended in Item 3.1,
Recommendations 1 and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to
Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation), and the affected communities.
(Vote: __10__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __2__ Absent or Abstain)
2.12 Modify NRRLI Waypoint on the First Leg of SERFR
In the Carmel Valley (Monterey County), aircraft joining the SERFR arrival procedure/path turn
over the Valley to reach the NRRLI waypoint. That turn has created adverse noise exposure on the
ground. Prior to the March 2015 implementation of NextGen procedures, aircraft flew over the
Carmel Valley in a straight line. It has been suggested that the NRRLI waypoint be moved to where
the SERFR procedure/path intersects the coastline near the City of Seaside along the Monterey
Bay.
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution, however, has the potential to
move existing noise to another community. For that reason, the Select Committee has not endorsed
this solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed solution, or a
variation thereof, could be effectively implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
20
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.13 San Jose International Airport Reverse Flow: Aircraft Arrivals
Under normal conditions, aircraft arriving at San Jose International Airport (SJC) arrive from the
south and depart heading north. During inclement weather, or a significant change in wind
direction over the San Jose area, the takeoff and landing approaches are temporarily reversed with
aircraft arriving at SJC from the north and departing to the south. This “Reverse Flow” brings
arriving aircraft in at lower altitudes to the west of SJC, over the communities of Palo Alto,
Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. It has been suggested that the “Reverse Flow” approach could
instead arrive from the east of SJC, using a “Normal Flow” departure procedure that is not used
during “Reverse Flow” conditions.
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution, however, has the potential to
move existing noise to another community (a community not represented by the congressional
districts that established the Select Committee). For that reason, the Select Committee has not
endorsed this proposed solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed
solution, or a variation thereof, could be effectively implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.14 Redirect Southern Arrivals (SERFR) to an Eastern Approach into SFO
As previously noted, SERFR is a southern arrival procedure/flight path into SFO (i.e., approaching
SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains). Flights on the SERFR procedure include
(among others) aircraft from the southwest, such as Phoenix and Houston. In June 2016, the
SERFR carried an average of 183 aircraft per day, or 30 percent of the arriving aircraft into SFO.
It has been suggested by some that these aircraft from the southwest be removed from the SERFR
arrival procedure, and instead use an eastern approach into SFO. Under this suggestion, aircraft
would either use the existing DYAMD arrival procedure (which is for flights arriving at SFO from
the east with a flight path that enters the Bay roughly between Fremont and Milpitas), or use a new
procedure crossing the FAITH waypoint (which is located at the intersection of Hostetter Road
and Morrill Avenue, east of Interstate 680 in East San Jose) (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of
BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
The FAA has advised the Committee that this proposed solution raises a number of potential
concerns. In June 2016, the DYAMD already carried the greatest percentage of daily air traffic
into SFO, an average of 253 aircraft per day, or 41 percent of the arriving traffic into SFO. The
DYAMD arrival procedure also shares the final approach path into SFO with aircraft arriving from
the north (on the BDEGA procedure), specifically the 30 percent of BDEGA arrivals that use the
San Francisco Bay approach (the so-called East leg). Increasing the aircraft load on the DYAMD
procedure as suggested reduces the opportunity to shift aircraft from the BDEGA Peninsula (so-
called West leg) approach onto the BDEGA San Francisco Bay approach (so-called East leg). For
that reason, the Select Committee has not endorsed this solution {see Item 2.2 in this Report
[Northern Arrivals (BDEGA) into SFO]}.
21
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
With regard to creating a new procedure using the FAITH waypoint, the FAA has advised the
Committee that this flight path has the potential to conflict with departures out of San Jose
International Airport and move existing noise to another community (a community not represented
by the congressional districts that established the Select Committee). For those reasons, the Select
Committee has not endorsed this solution. However, it has been noted that the existence of an
overnight curfew at San Jose International Airport might accommodate a new procedure using the
FAITH waypoint as a potential solution in the overnight hours. The FAA may, therefore, wish to
examine whether this proposed solution, or a variation thereof (e.g., at night), could be effectively
implemented without shifting noise.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.15 Fan-in Overseas Arrivals (OCEANIC) into SFO
The OCEANIC arrival procedure into SFO comes in from the west from overseas locations, such
as Asia, and Hawaii, with aircraft converging into a single path at the PIRAT waypoint which is
off the coast. Once on a single path, the aircraft cross the San Francisco Peninsula at the Woodside
VOR, a navigational beacon located in the Woodside area, and proceed to the final approach into
SFO (See Appendix C, Page C4: Map of BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD).
It has been suggested that the arriving OCEANIC aircraft could instead be “fanned-in” into the
area of the Woodside VOR, using that point and other new waypoints to achieve dispersion of the
arriving aircraft. The FAA has advised the Committee that it lacks the technology, i.e., metering
tools, to implement this proposed solution. The presence of Special Use Airspace (SUA) along the
coastline at this location (which restricts civilian aircraft from using that airspace), further
constrains the FAA. The FAA has advised the Committee that while this solution might be feasible,
there are a very low number of OCEANIC flights (roughly 31 flights per day in June 2016) per
day. In addition, the FAA has advised the Committee that this solution also potentially moves
noise to other communities. For these reasons, the Select Committee has not endorsed this solution.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
22
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
2.16 Herringbone Approach to SFO Arrivals
It has been suggested that noise exposure along a specific corridor/flight path could be reduced if
flights joined the path at various points, thus creating a “herringbone” or “trident” effect.
The “herringbone” or “trident” is a multiple approach concept for dispersion of arrivals to reduce
the number of overflights along a single path. Using this concept, Air Traffic Control would be
instructed to distribute arriving aircraft to multiple transition locations along the arrival path, hence
the “herringbone” or “trident” patterns.
It has also been suggested that the herringbone approach could be applied to the SERFR arrival
procedure, which approaches SFO from the south over the Santa Cruz Mountains. The FAA,
however, has advised the Committee that it currently lacks the technology, i.e., metering tools, to
implement this proposed solution. The congested San Francisco Bay Area airspace, with three
major commercial airports in close proximity to each other, also potentially limits the applicability
of this solution. Finally, the FAA has advised the Committee that a herringbone approach would
likely result in an increase in vectoring. For these reasons, the Select Committee has not endorsed
this solution. The FAA may, however, wish to examine whether this proposed solution, or a
variation thereof, could be effectively implemented once the needed technological tools have been
developed.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __11__ Aye, __1__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
2.17 Return to Pre-NextGen Procedures, Altitudes, and Concentration
A continuous thread to the public input received by the Committee was to simply return conditions,
including aircraft procedures, altitudes, and concentration, to “how they were before NextGen.”
While the Committee is sympathetic to this input, the FAA has repeatedly indicated that changes
to the San Francisco Bay Area airspace pursuant to NextGen are not reversible. The FAA has
repeatedly advised the Committee that the 2012 federal legislation reauthorizing the FAA required
the FAA to adopt and use advanced technology to modernize the air transport system. For these
reasons the Select Committee has not endorsed this proposed solution. However, the Select
Committee recommends the implementation of a number of solutions to improve NextGen, as
discussed throughout this Report.
Adopted by the Select Committee.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
23
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 3: LONGER-TERM ISSUES
In the Select Committee’s deliberations several longer-term issues were identified that went
beyond the timeframe of the Committee’s work plan. Each of these longer-term issues are of
significance and the Committee recommends that resolution be pursued in as timely a manner as
possible via appropriate channels.
3.1 Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation
In the San Francisco Bay Area airspace, noise-related concerns are not confined to a single
commercial airport. The three major commercial airports (SFO, Oakland International-OAK, and
San Jose International-SJC) that ring the San Francisco Bay (Bay) have a combined 136 arrival
and departure procedures (i.e., paths). These arrival and departure procedures crisscross the Bay
and impact the three county area represented by the members of Congress who established the
Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals. This presents an obvious challenge to those affected by
and/or attempting to mitigate aircraft noise. As an example, Santa Cruz Mountains’ residents
affected by the SERFR arrival procedure from the south into SFO are also affected by the BRIXX
arrival procedure from the north into SJC.
The need for a permanent entity to address these multi-county impacts became readily apparent to
the Committee in the course of its work.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that an Ad-Hoc Subcommittee consisting
of two Members/Alternates from the Select Committee (or others yet to be
named) from each County/Congressional District be convened by the three
members of Congress who empaneled the Select Committee over the short-term
to continue work on the issues identified in this Report, including the
framework of the longer term entity referenced in Recommendation 2
immediately below. More specifically, the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee would
consider: (1) the financial, administrative, and technical resources needed to
support the permanent entity; (2) funding of the permanent entity; and (3)
structure of the permanent entity. Among other tasks, the Ad-Hoc
Subcommittee would also receive reports, if any, on the implementation of the
Recommendations included in this Report. The Ad-Hoc Subcommittee would
consult with the FAA, SFO, and local jurisdictions in developing a framework
to support the permanent entity going forward and report to the Members of
Congress with its recommendation within 120 days.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Select Committee strongly recommends that a permanent entity be
established to address issues of aircraft noise in the three county area on an
ongoing basis, and to provide a forum for community input. The Select
Committee’s schedule did not permit time to develop a recommended
governance structure.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
24
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
3.2 Restricted/Special Use Airspace
Special Use Airspace (SUA) are areas designated for operations that require restrictions on aircraft
not participating in those operations. These operations are often of a military nature. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, there are SUA restrictions (military) along much of the Pacific coastline that
constrain the FAA’s flexibility to expand or restructure the use of civilian airspace.
Recommendation: While the Select Committee is not questioning the need for or importance of
Special Use Airspace (SUA) in our region, the Committee recommends that the
FAA review the SUA in our area with an eye towards better balancing special
use restrictions and civilian aviation needs, particularly in the congested San
Francisco Bay Area airspace.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.3 Noise Measurement
Following the March 2015 changes to the San Francisco Bay Area airspace that implemented
NextGen performance based navigation technology and new flight procedures/paths, it became
readily apparent to the Committee that the FAA’s established noise measurement metrics are
inadequate. They do not represent what is being experienced by people on the ground.
The existing metrics do not adequately identify or acknowledge ground level noise exposure, even
when noise at the reported levels is enough to be noticeable and disturbing to the public. The
shortcoming exists in large measure because the cumulative noise level (over a 24-hour period) is
not high enough to technically constitute a “significant impact.”
More specifically, the use of a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) alone is ill-suited to assess
ground level impacts, particularly from the standpoint of amplitude, duration, time of occurrence,
and repetitiveness (concentration of flight paths). In addition, noise analysis at a community level
(i.e., over a relatively broad swath) results in a blending of noise that does not reflect more
localized impacts. Measuring noise more locally and precisely (e.g., at the census block level)
would avoid this “blending” and diluting of noise exposure. The Committee also notes that, on the
national level, numerous studies of alternative noise metrics highlight the deficiencies of DNL.
Further, the FAA’s metrics rely on A-Weighting to measure sound pressure levels (e.g., the way
the ear hears), commonly expressed in dBA. A-Weighting was originally intended only for the
measurement of low-level sounds. Yet it is now commonly used for the measurement of
environmental and industrial noise, including aircraft noise, as well as when assessing potential
hearing damage and other noise health effects at all sound levels. However, because A-Weighting
is applicable to only low levels, it tends to devalue the effects of low frequency noise in particular.
Other frequency weighting, such as “C-” and “Z-” Weightings are available. Use of these
frequency weightings yields measurements of all noise, instead of only a small fraction of it.
25
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the congressional Quiet Skies Caucus to require
the FAA to lower the acceptable DNL threshold from the current level of 65, and to use
supplemental metrics that characterize the true impact of airline noise experienced by people on
the ground; and further encourages broader congressional consideration of these efforts.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the U.S. Congress require the FAA
to adopt supplemental metrics for aircraft noise that characterize the true impact
experienced by people on the ground.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.4 Capacity Limitations
The Select Committee understands that the growth in air traffic for the Bay Area is projected to
increase by approximately 2 percent per annum. While overall capacity limitations have not been
reached at San Francisco International Airport, the availability of additional daytime flight
capacity is limited, and it is anticipated that future traffic growth can only be accommodated during
nighttime hours. The impact of additional flights during overnight hours is significantly greater to
those on the ground, and requires stricter nighttime regulations to avoid sleep interference, as
discussed further in Item 2.4 in this Report (Overnight Flights). Longer term, increased traffic
levels may necessitate implementation of capacity limitations, such as longer in-trail spacing
between aircraft or assigned gate slots.
Recommendation: The Select Committee believes these capacity issues should be considered by
any successor committee, as recommended in Item 3.1, Recommendations 1
and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise
Mitigation).
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
3.5 Aircraft Speed
The issue of aircraft speed and its impact on noise arose late in the Select Committee’s
deliberations.
Recommendation: The Select Committee believes the issue of aircraft speed and its impact on
noise should be considered by any successor committee, as recommended in
Item 3.1, Recommendations 1 and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing
Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation).
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
26
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
SECTION 4: PROCESS ISSUES
In its deliberations, the Select Committee identified three process issues of note that warrant further
consideration and follow-up.
4.1 Who Makes Recommendations to Whom
In the face of widespread concern about aircraft noise over portions of three counties, the Select
Committee was empaneled to provide recommendations to Members of Congress on appropriate
measures to eliminate or mitigate noise where practicable. The Committee members understood
and accepted that assignment, and this Report represents the Committee’s best effort to offer such
recommendations.
That being said, the mitigation of aircraft noise is a highly technical matter. The Committee was
wholly comprised of (elected) lay people. Charging a group of elected lay people with the
responsibility for making recommendations in this area seems less than ideal, particularly when
the FAA has the requisite expertise and responsibility to manage aircraft traffic in the public
interest.
Simply put, notwithstanding the FAA’s good faith effort to provide technical expertise to the
Committee, the Committee’s view is that the process is fundamentally backwards – the FAA
should be going to Members of Congress and their affected constituencies with proposals for
review and comment, not the other way around.
Recommendation: Should a similar process be employed here or elsewhere in the country in the
future, the Select Committee recommends that, to the greatest degree possible,
the FAA be charged with the responsibility for identifying and proposing
solutions to mitigate noise concerns, and that community groups and elected
officials be consulted for review and comment, and to offer additional
suggestions.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
4.2 Need for Before/After Noise Monitoring
The lack of aircraft noise monitoring prior to the implementation of NextGen hampered the
Committee’s (and the public’s) ability to measure and document the actual impacts of the changes
that were implemented in March 2015. Looking ahead, the Committee is concerned that if the
FAA fails to perform “before and after” noise measurements related to the implementation of
Recommendations contained in this Report, there will likewise be an inability to measure, analyze
and verify, and document the desired improvements. Accordingly, the Select Committee offers the
following Recommendation.
Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA and/or SFO monitor and
document noise exposure of any feasible solutions before and after FAA
27
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
implementation to ensure impacts are verified, and to determine whether results
are of a discernible benefit.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends the implementation of a set of regional noise
monitoring stations that will adequately monitor aircraft noise levels at
carefully selected points in the San Francisco Bay Area and the three
Congressional Districts represented on the Select Committee. Collected data
shall be made available to citizens upon request.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
4.3 Ensuring Compliance
The Committee received significant comment from both the public, and the elected official
members of the Committee, about prior understandings, directives, or agreements, including those
regarding altitude restrictions, not being adhered to. Such comments suggest the need for
compliance monitoring with respect to previously agreed to efforts, and with respect to newly
identified noise mitigation efforts.
Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends careful documentation and ongoing
compliance monitoring for any set of solutions accepted and implemented by
the FAA. The Committee recommends that the Members of Congress ensure
that the FAA takes the appropriate steps to measure and guarantee ongoing
compliance.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain)
A1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX A: Vote Record
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Si
m
i
t
i
a
n
,
C
h
a
i
r
Le
o
p
o
l
d
,
V
i
c
e
Ch
a
i
r
Pi
n
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
Ad
d
i
e
g
o
Be
r
n
a
l
d
Bo
t
t
o
r
f
f
Hi
n
d
i
La
n
e
Mc
P
h
e
r
s
o
n
Mo
o
d
y
Wa
l
d
e
c
k
We
n
g
e
r
t
To
t
a
l
UP Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
1.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R1 N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 8-4-0
1.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.2 R4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
1.6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.2 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.3 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.4 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.5 R5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.6 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.6 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.9 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.9 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.11 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -- Y Y -- Y 10-0-2
2.12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
A2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Si
m
i
t
i
a
n
,
C
h
a
i
r
Le
o
p
o
l
d
,
V
i
c
e
Ch
a
i
r
Pi
n
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
Ad
d
i
e
g
o
Be
r
n
a
l
d
Bo
t
t
o
r
f
f
Hi
n
d
i
La
n
e
Mc
P
h
e
r
s
o
n
Mo
o
d
y
Wa
l
d
e
c
k
We
n
g
e
r
t
To
t
a
l
2.13 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.14 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
2.15 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
2.16 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11-1-0
2.17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.1 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.1 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
3.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.2 R1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.2 R2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
4.3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 12-0-0
B1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX B: Map of Key Waypoints
C1
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BSR and SERFR
C2
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: NIITE
C3
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: CNDEL
C4
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BDEGA, OCEANIC, SERFR, and DYAMD
C5
Report of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
APPENDIX C: Maps of Selected Flight Paths: BRIXX
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable 455 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 T (650) 363-1853 F (650) 363-4849 www.sforoundtable.org
Working together for quieter skies
November 17, 2016
The Honorable Anna Eshoo
United States House of Representatives
698 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Honorable Sam Farr
United States House of Representatives
701 Ocean St, Room 318C
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The Honorable Jackie Speier
United States House of Representatives
155 Bovet Road, Suite 780
San Mateo, CA 94402
Re: FAA Initiative Phase 1, SFO Airport/Community Roundtable Response
Dear Members Eshoo, Farr, and Speier:
The San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable) would like to gratefully
thank each of you for forcefully advocating on behalf of our residents. You listened to our concerns,
wrote letters to and held meetings with FAA Administrator Huerta. You invited FAA Regional
Administrator Glen Martin to community leadership meetings, and you have sought the Roundtable’s
and Select Committee’s recommendations to the FAA Initiative.
Through your leadership, the FAA has heard about the deleterious noise, emissions and health
issues caused by aircraft operations and the FAA’s NextGen airspace changes in the NorCal
Metroplex, which has negatively affected over a million people in our area. And now, the FAA is
listening.
Thank you for the opportunity to open a dialogue with the FAA Regional Administrator, the Western
Service Center and the Sierra Pacific District Air Traffic Operations to collaboratively look for ways to
decrease the noise and health impacts on our residents and improve the quality of their lives.
In reviewing the FAA Initiative, there are approximately 29 Adjustments that are under the purview of
the Roundtable; of this total, 13 were deemed by the FAA as “Feasible” while 16 were deemed by
the FAA as “Not Feasible.” Those deemed Not Feasible may likely be remedied by operational
changes and pilot and controller outreach, rather than a protracted environmental process to change
a procedure. These recommendations include both short-term and long-term solutions. We implore
the FAA to implement the short-term solutions as soon as possible to provide relief for our citizens
while working on the longer-term solutions.
SFO Airport/Community Roundtable Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 2 of 57
This letter will detail our response to each of the Adjustments.
None of these proposed recommendations can be successful without a concentrated collaboration
among stakeholders, including you, as our Members of Congress, as well as the FAA Regional
Administrator, the FAA Western Service Center and our local NORCAL TRACON professionals as
part of the Sierra Pacific District Air Traffic Operations team. In addition, we strive to include other
stakeholders such as San Francisco International Airport, airlines, other elected officials, the Select
Committee on South Bay Arrivals, as well as the citizens we represent in our communities. As this
process continues, the Roundtable requests that the FAA conducts ongoing compliance monitoring
to ensure procedures are being followed, as well as a public outreach process.
The Roundtable has worked extensively with its members and has held many public meetings over
the past nine months to fully understand the issues, so that the attached recommendations
responding to the FAA Initiative have been driven by our local residents, and thus garner the support
of our communities. The attached recommendations have been unanimously approved by the
members of the Roundtable and are organized as follows:
Attachment A: Overarching Concerns
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable’s Response to the FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Attachment E: Letters and Resolutions of Support from Roundtable Member Cities
Our SFO Airport/Community Roundtable looks forward to working with you and the FAA to
collaboratively develop solutions that reduce noise impacts in our communities, while maintaining
safety in our skies.
cc:
Glen Martin, Regional Administrator
Clark Desing, Director, Western Service Center
Ron Fincher, Director, Air Traffic Operations Western Service Area South
Tony DiBernardo, Terminal District Manager, Sierra Pacific District Air Traffic Operations
Don Kirby, Manager, NORCAL TRACON
Tracey Johnson, Manager, Quality Control Group, Mission Services
Mindy Wright, Manager, South Airspace & Procedures Team
Members, SFO Airport/Community Roundtable
Members, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable 455 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 T (650) 363-1853 F (650) 363-4849 www.sforoundtable.org
ATTACHMENT A
OVERARCHING CONCERNS
SFO AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE RESPONSE TO FAA
INITIATIVE
LEGISLATION and AGENCY ACTIONS: We appreciate your participation in the Congressional
Quiet Skies Caucus and urge that legislation be enacted to protect the health and well-being of
residents in communities which are affected by flight operations. We also urge legislation to require
that affected communities be recognized as stakeholders at each and every stage of FAA action
which could potentially affect their communities. We support repeal or amendment of the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 and other existing law, in order to allow airports to impose non-
discriminatory nighttime curfews, capacity limitations at saturated airports, and other noise
abatement improvements.
AIRCRAFT NOISE AS A HEALTH ISSUE: If aircraft noise is only seen as “annoying” to residents, it
would overlook the well-documented detrimental effects of noise on the health of the members of
communities underlying flight paths. Documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals, noise
adversely and seriously affects blood pressure, cardiovascular and other health issues in
adults. Impacts to children show that aircraft noise can result in an increase in children’s blood
pressure and can cause negative impacts on children’s education as shown by lower levels in
cognitive testing, task perseverance, long term memory, short term memory and reading
achievement.
In assessing impacts to the community, the Roundtable asks that consideration be given to the
limitations of using an annual average metric such as DNL to assess impact on the members of the
community. Impact to the community extends far beyond an arbitrary DNL level which is widely
acknowledged to be inadequate. There are other available noise metrics, including those that better
capture how frequency of flights affect communities; where available, these alternate metrics should
be factored into FAA decisions. We understand that the FAA is conducting a wide-ranging study of
noise impacts on the communities. When the results are available, we would recommend that more
representative noise metrics from this study be implemented as soon as feasible and that existing
and future flight procedures be reviewed in light of the new noise data.
FAA MISSION STATEMENT: The FAA Mission Statement currently reads – “Our Mission: Our
continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.” We
support action to amend the FAA Mission Statement to include “noise, health and other impacts to
the communities” along with efficiency, as a secondary consideration after safety. While nothing can
be more important than safety in our skies, it is the opinion of this Roundtable that noise and
adverse health impacts to the communities should be included at least as equally important
considerations as efficiency.
Attachment A: Overarching Concerns
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 4 of 57
INCREASED COMMUNITY ROLE IN FAA ACTIONS: We support legislative and FAA action which
would increase the role of communities in FAA processes. The SFO Roundtable supports the
inclusion of the community in the FAA procedure design process and other processes as an equal
stakeholder, so that we can participate from the same point in time and at the same level as
stakeholders who advocate for efficiency. This includes having community representatives as equal
members of the FAA Full Work Group and its iterative processes, not merely as an afterthought--
offering comments after all decisions have been made.
FAA procedure design criteria must be modified to consider not just safety and efficiency for the
airspace users, but also consider community impact and to solicit community input using local land
conditions, population density, other sensitive noise areas, success of historical routes and other
community-provided factors. This is why we strongly support designing and flying procedures such
as the CNDEL, SSTIK, and BDEGA to utilize the Bay and ocean as efficiently as possible.
Ameliorative efforts, such as track dispersal, avoidance of narrow flight path corridors over heavily
populated areas and increased in-trail spacing to reduce vectoring, should be incorporated in
designing procedures and in taking all other actions which might potentially affect communities.
FAA PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS: The FAA should immediately review, expand and improve
their public engagement process. Appropriate notifications to elected officials, community leaders
and the public should be substantially improved. While legal notification may be satisfied by such
measures as listing in the Federal Register and placing an ad in the legal notice section of a local
newspaper, this rarely reaches elected officials or members of the public. Use of social media
targeted to specific airports or geographic areas should be part of this process. The FAA website
should create user-friendly public engagement pages to make FAA proposed actions easy to find
and to invite public comment. Community meetings should provide an opportunity for Airport
Roundtable representatives and other advocates to formally present information and contrary views.
MAINTAIN CURRENT NAVIGATION ASSETS: We understand that the Big Sur VOR is in a group of
navigational aids slated for decommissioning beginning in fiscal year 2016. The Roundtable requests
that no navigational aids upon which procedures in the NorCal airspace rely be decommissioned and
no flight procedure or waypoints in the NorCal airspace be deleted or removed from the approved
flight procedures database until the FAA Initiative Community Engagement process has been
completed with all new procedures implemented. While the airspace is being reviewed, the
Roundtable requests the FAA to review the necessity of maintaining the Special Use Airspace over
the Pacific Ocean at the coastline and other areas that may restrict commercial flight routes. Use of
this airspace by commercial flights may allow for additional options for noise abatement routes to
alleviate noise to communities.
VECTORING FOR EFFICIENCY: The Roundtable understands that vectoring for airspace
separation is important for safety. However, vectoring for efficiency—especially that which causes
increased needless noise to residents or causes noise to residents in areas not included in the
procedures design environmental review--should be avoided.
Flight schedules that exceed an airport’s capacity can increase aircraft being vectored for efficiency
and separation. For example, at SFO, 50% of flights from the south are routinely planned to be
vectored off course because of airspace congestion at SFO. The FAA should increase the in-trail
spacing of these flights to avoid unnecessary vectoring. While the Roundtable recognizes that this
may cause some departure delays, it will eliminate in-flights delays, reducing emissions and noise.
While awaiting future improvements such as Time Based Flow Management, we ask that the FAA
Attachment A: Overarching Concerns
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 5 of 57
take action now to reduce the need for unnecessary vectoring over communities – which adds
completely unnecessary emissions, noise and health impacts to those communities.
NIGHTTIME PROCEDURES PLAN: The Roundtable has compiled a comprehensive Nighttime
Procedures Plan which includes recommendations for new and revised flight procedures, filing for
alternative flight paths and requests to the professional air traffic controllers to use their best efforts
to manage traffic with a goal of 100% of all nighttime flights departing and arriving over water such
as the Pacific Ocean and Bay.
Aircraft noise at night most severely impacts the health and well-being of residents and especially
children, who must sleep to recharge for their next day of school learning. Because of serious health
and learning impacts, the FAA should take extraordinary steps to decrease nighttime hours’ noise –
including extra miles flown and modest flight delays.
The Nighttime Procedures Plan encompasses the Roundtable nighttime recommendations in the
following Executive Outline and Attachment documents. While ideally, these special nighttime hours’
procedures would be used from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, that is not generally possible. The ability to
fully use the Nighttime Procedures Plan is based on fewer flights and additional available airspace.
This happens when the SJC curfew begins at 11:30 pm, along with fewer SFO and OAK flights
which generally occurs between midnight and 6:00 am. For those bad weather days, we can expect
that flight delays earlier in the day, will likely delay the start time of the Nighttime Procedures Plan.
We urge the FAA to use selected procedures from the Nighttime Procedures Plan during those
hours when the entire plan may not be operationally feasible.
Members of the Roundtable have already met with FAA representatives to discuss and refine these
nighttime recommendations. These ongoing FAA/SFO Roundtable meetings will expand to include
invited representatives from SFO Airport as well as representatives from the airlines who use the
Bay Area airspace with goals to timely implement these recommendations as well as collaborate on
additional nighttime improvements.
Details of the Nighttime Procedures Plan include:
Implementation of a south transition to the NIITE/HUSSH departure – to use in place of the SFO
SSTIK and OAK CNDEL southbound departures (already deemed feasible by the FAA).
Goal of 100% of flights to the north, east, south and west flying the NIITE/HUSSH departures to
the final fix on the departure (NIITE for north and east; GOBBS for west and the to-be-
determined final fix on south transition) -- not turning early.
Filing of alternate flight routes for arrivals from the west (Oceanic) and south (SERFR) which
would keep flights primarily over water with the goal of 100% of arrivals from the north and west
using the east downwind of the BDEGA (not the west downwind), weather dependent.
Use of a single stream of traffic to approach and land on Runway 28R (when landing to the
west).
Use of offset approaches to Runway 28R only (when weather permits and when landing to the
west).
Use of opposite direction takeoffs from Runways 10L/R (when weather and traffic permit) instead
of the Runways 28 straight out departures.
Use of Runways 28 L/R Shoreline/TRUKN departure instead of the Runways 28 L/R straight out
departures.
Attachment A: Overarching Concerns
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 6 of 57
Use of already-developed controller vectoring to keep departures over the Bay (SFO 050
heading and the OAK heading for southbound flights in place of southbound SSTIK and
CNDEL).
Use of controller developed vectoring, techniques and perhaps alternate flight plan filing to
mirror the NIITE south transition until it has been implemented (in place of southbound SSTIK
and CNDEL).
In circumstances where a flight must fly over land (especially during the time when new
procedures are being implemented), controllers are requested to use best efforts to keep aircraft
as high as possible over land – and perhaps utilize a slightly longer path over the Bay to
dissipate this additional altitude.
Modification of the BDEGA East Downwind to reinstate the FINSH waypoint and determine if an
RNAV/RNP curved approach procedure can be designed for BDEGA East to Runway 28R.
Determine if Runways 10L/R can be re-authorized to use the NIITE departure up the Bay.
Determine if a 3,000’ altitude cap on Runways 28 L/R straight-out departures can be lifted
(avoiding level flight on the climb-out) and using the GAP 7 departure with no altitude restriction
during the redesign of GNNRR.
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable 455 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 T (650) 363-1853 F (650) 363-4849 www.sforoundtable.org
ATTACHMENT B
EXECUTIVE WORKING OUTLINE
SFO AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE RESPONSE TO FAA INITIATIVE
ST =Short Term Task
LT = Long Term Task
LIGHT GRAY SHADING = FAA NORCAL TRACON
DARK GRAY SHADING = FAA Western Service Group
LEAD = Task lead agency:
SFO = SFO Airport Manager
RT = SFO Airport/Community Roundtable
NCT = FAA NORCAL TRACON
WSC = FAA Western Service Group
OKC = Flight Procedures Oklahoma City
# LEAD LT/
ST
ARRIVALS
1
BDEGA +
Other
arrivals from
north
Woodside
+ Mid-
Peninsula
WSC ST Safety and traffic flow permitting, go back
to historical use of the BDEGA East
downwind prior to May 2010.
The RT understands that at certain times of the day,
continuous traffic flow on the DYMND arrival causes
reduced opportunities to use the BDEGA East
downwind. However, when traffic allows (or when a
slot can be created), use of the BDEGA east
downwind significantly decreases noise to the entire
mid-Peninsula.
2 BDEGA +
Other
arrivals from
north
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
WSC ST The FAA has provided, via the Select
Committee on South Bay Arrivals, data on
BDEGA West and East legs, showing the
decline in the use of the East leg, with it
being used only 28% of the time in May
2016 versus 42% in May 2010, down from
a high in May 2005 of 57%.
Residents would benefit by understanding the
limitations on the use of the BDEGA East downwind
and the causes underlying what appears to be a
significant decrease over the past few years in the
utilization of the BDEGA East downwind.
Consideration should be given to making the BDEGA
procedure a RNP arrival down the bay, creating a
curved arrival path over the bay.
3 BDEGA
Other
arrivals from
north
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
WSC LT If safety is not a factor, request the
reinstatement of the FNISH transition in
order to facilitate use of the BDEGA East
downwind.
Ideally (even if only in visual conditions), it would be
beneficial to create a “connection” between FNISH
waypoint and a turn on to 28R for the FMS Bridge
Visual, Quiet Bridge Visual or similar approach to
28R. This would most benefit non-local pilots who
may not be familiar with SFO BDGEA East Downwind
procedures.
4 BDEGA
Other
arrivals from
north
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
WSC ST The RT requests the FAA provide data on
Golden Gate/BDEGA lateral track locations
pre-NextGen and post-NextGen and if
new procedures can use headings, not
tracks, in procedure design.
The Golden Gate arrival directed a 140° heading
from SFO. In the BDEGA, this was changed to a 140°
concentrated TRACK from BRIXX waypoint located on
SFO. Consider other factors which may also account
for aircraft following a different track after NextGen.
5 BDEGA
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
WSC LT Determine if the BDEGA West downwind
can be flown at a higher altitude or over
compatible land uses.
It has been suggested that the BDEGA West
downwind be flown at a higher altitude
notwithstanding the constraints of the BRIXX at
12,000 feet.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 8 of 57
6 BDEGA
Arrival
IN-TRAIL
SPACING
NCT ST The SFO RT requests that the FAA study
whether an increase in in-trail spacing on
the BDEGA arrival will result in the
decrease in vectoring over the Peninsula
Efficiency to the industry must be balanced with
noise and health impacts to the communities as well
as increased emissions to the environment.
7 BDEGA
Other
arrivals from
north
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
NCT ST BDEGA
NIGHTTIME HOURS
During the nighttime hours, every effort
should be made for all arrivals from the
north to be assigned the historical BDEGA
East Downwind.
If delay vectors are needed to create a single stream
to 28R or to incorporate BDEGA East downwind into
the flow, early adjustments to DYMND arrivals might
have the least noise impact on residents.
Administrative Draft
8 SERFR
Arrival
IN-TRAIL
SPACING
NCT ST The SFO RT recommends that the FAA
increase the in-trail spacing of aircraft on
the SERFR arrival, flying the procedure as
charted, which will decrease the need for
vectoring. For this arrival, the SFO RT also
recommends increasing the altitude of the
arrivals on the assigned routes as well as
the vector traffic.
The FAA reports that more than 50% of planes on the
SERFR Arrival are vectored off their path; some
vectors begin as early as Monterey. This vectoring
results in many additional flight miles, causing
significant increases in noise and emissions. While
the RT understands that this recommendation for
increased in-trail spacing may result in ground delays
at the departure cities, it will be at least partially
offset by the reduced amount of airborne flight
delays. This planned vectoring merely masks the
problem; efficiency must be balanced with noise and
health impacts to the communities as well as
increased emissions to the environment.
9 SERFR +
BSR
Woodside+
Mid-
Peninsula
WSC ST FLIGHT FROM THE SOUTH
NIGHTTIME HOURS
During nighttime hours only, determine if
arrivals from the south (such as on the
SERFR/BSR) could instead file a route
which would terminate to the east of the
Bay for an approach to Runway 28R.
During the nighttime hours only, the concept is to
allow aircraft to file a routing similar to an LAX-OAK
route (such as KLAX-CASTA6-GMN-RGOOD-
EMOZOH3 to MYNEE), then from MYNEE (or other)
direct ARCHI or ANETE, then conduct a noise-
friendlier approach such as the FMS Bridge Visual
28R, Quiet Bridge Visual 28R, RNAV (RNP) Y 28R or if
required, ILS 28R.
10 BDEGA
West
Downwind
OCEANIC
SERFR/
BSR
ARRIVALS
WSC LT NIGHTTIME HOURS
APPLICABLE TO SFO AND OAK FLIGHTS
During nighttime hours only (ideally 10
pm – 7 am), whenever aircraft fly over
residential areas, the RT requests that
every effort be made to keep aircraft at a
higher altitude than typical daytime
altitudes.
Consider using extra flight distance over
the Bay to 28R to dissipate extra altitude.
During nighttime hours only, the goal is for BDEGA
arrivals to be assigned the EAST Downwind, the goal
for OCEANIC arrivals is for the flights to file for an
arrival substantially over water (ex. BDEGA East
Downwind) and the goal for SERFR/BSR is to file for
an arrival to the east of the Bay.
However, in the interim, and at any time flight over
residential areas is absolutely required, higher
altitudes over land might be dissipated by flight over
the Bay to a 28R “noise-friendlier” approach. The
amount of higher altitude available over land is
related to the amount of miles flown to intercept the
28R approach.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 9 of 57
11 DYAMD
Arrival
IN-TRAIL
SPACING
NCT ST The SFO RT recommends that the FAA
increase the in-trail spacing of aircraft on
the DYAMD arrival to allow additional
opportunities for aircraft to use the
BDEGA East arrival, Down the Bay. By
routing more flights over the BDEGA East
downwind, vectoring noise and emissions
over the Peninsula (from SERFR, Oceanic
and BDEGA West) will be decreased.
The DYAMD arrival is used by aircraft arriving from
the east. This arrival feeds into SFO 28R approaches.
The level of vectoring on DYAMD is low and is
generally done over unpopulated areas. By increasing
the spacing of aircraft on the DYAMD – either for 24
hours of the day or during the hours in which traffic
is estimated to exceed a pre-determined level—there
should be additional opportunities for aircraft on the
BDEGA to be assigned the BDEGA East downwind
over the Bay, rather than the BDEGA West downwind
over the noise-sensitive Peninsula and will decrease
noise and emissions over the Peninsula. Efficiency to
the industry must be balanced with noise and health
impacts to the communities as well as increased
emissions to the environment.
12 RWY 28
APPROACHES
Foster City
NCT ST Regardless of the time of day, whenever
there is a single stream operation to only
one runway, aircraft should approach and
land only on Runway 28R.
This request is in accordance with NCT SOPs.
13 RWY 28
APPROACHES
Foster City
NCT ST When landing single stream to 28R or
landing both 28L/28R in VMC, aircraft
landing 28R should be assigned noise
“friendlier” approaches such as FMS
Bridge Visual 28R, Quiet Bridge Visual, or
RNAV (RNP) Y 28R.
This request is substantially in accordance with the
NCT SOPs.
14 RWY 28
APPROACHES
Foster City
NCT ST NIGHTTIME HOURS
ATC should make every effort to
coordinate traffic arrivals to create a
single stream of traffic to land only on
Runway 28R.
Depending on weather conditions, aircraft would be
expected to fly the FMS Bridge Visual 28R, the Quiet
Bridge Visual, the RNAV (RNP) Runway 28R, (or if
conditions require) the ILS 28R or other approach to
Runway.
15 RWY 28
APPROACHES
Foster City
OKC
*
LT Determine the feasibility of creating dual
offset (VMC or IMC) RNAV, RNAV (RNP) or
other type of approach to Runway 28L
and to Runway 28R.
This requested concept would create two offset
paths with both the 28L path and the 28R path
remaining well clear of Foster City and other bayside
communities until past the San Mateo Bridge when
aircraft would then line up with each runway for
landing.
16 MENLO
+ VICINITY
NCT ST In VMC, aircraft should cross the vicinity
around the MENLO waypoint and at or
above 5,000 feet MSL. Aircraft within the
vicinity of MENLO should use the 5,000’
altitude when able.
The SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office and
Northern California TRACON have an agreement that
states when able, aircraft will cross the MENLO
intersection VMC at 5,000’ MSL and IMC at 4,000’
MSL.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 10 of 57
17 MENLO
+Vicinity
SFO
TIPP TOE
VISUAL
28L
FAA LT Create a Visual Approach for Runway 28L
with a MENLO crossing altitude at or
above 5,000’ MSL.
While the TIPP TOE Visual Runway 28L is still a
published approach procedure, the RT understands
that it is little, if at all, used since NextGen. The SFO
RT requests that the FAA replace the TIPP TOE Visual
with a comparable NextGen Visual Arrival to 28L
preserving the TIPP TOE Visual requirement for
crossing MENLO at or above 5000’.
DEPARTURES
18 NITTE
HUSSH
WSC ST This procedure should be flown as
charted including flying over the NIITE
flyover waypoint as specified in the
departure procedure.
When the NIITE Southbound transition is published,
flights should fly the complete published departure
unless a 050° heading is available as an alternative;
this does not advocate increasing Rwy 01 flights at
night.
19 NIITE
HUSSH
WSC LT NIITE/HUSSH SOUTH
NIGHTTIME HOURS
APPLICABLE TO SFO AND OAK FLIGHTS
Create a south transition for the NIITE that
keeps traffic over the Bay and ocean until
a high altitude is attained.
The south transition to the NIITE should
also include applicability of that transition
to the OAK HUSSH.
Since the NIITE has a transition for westbound traffic
to GOBBS waypoint, a southbound transition could
follow a track using the PYE 135° radial (which
defines GOBBS) from GOBBS to the PORTE waypoint.
Some have suggested that the track should remain
offshore for some distance beyond PORTE which
could be done using a portion of the OFFSHORE ONE
departure, with aircraft flying to the WAMMY
waypoint in the ocean, or a similarly-located
waypoint that is offshore, well clear of the coastline.
20 NIITE NCT ST NIITE/HUSSH SOUTH
NIGHTTIME HOURS
APPLICABLE TO SFO AND OAK FLIGHTS
While awaiting the development of a
NIITE/HUSSH SOUTH transitions, NCT is
requested to use the NIITE DP track to
GOBBS and then vectors from GOBBS
southbound (keeping offshore) at least
until PORTE or further south.
This vector request mirrors the long-standing NCT
SOP which reflects, in essence, a vector to GOBBS
“Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 local (Sundays
to 0800), vector oceanic departures over the Bay to
pass over the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge.”
This request would simply add on a request for a
vector from the vicinity of GOBBS southbound to
remain well clear of the coastline.
21 NIITE NCT ST NIITE
NIGHTTIME HOURS
Determine if Runway 10 take-offs can be
authorized to use the NIITE. If not, create
a departure to allow Runway 10 take-offs
to make a left turn up the Bay to NIITE
waypoint.
Apparently safety concerns resulted in the removal
of the authorization for Runway 10 take-offs to use
the NIITE. Perhaps these concerns could be reviewed
to determine if another departure routing or
transition could be created to ensure safety.
22 NIITE WSC ST NIGHT-NIITE/HUSSH: determine if aircraft
can file for SFO QUIET Departure or the
OAK SILENT Departure and then be
vectored in accordance with NCT SOPs out
to GOBBS and then southbound.
Or perhaps there is a way for the nighttime hours
southbound aircraft that would normally file for
CNDEL/SSTIK, to file for NIITE with a GOBBS
transition, then vector past PORTE to then go on-
course. The WAMMY waypoint could also be used for
this procedure.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 11 of 57
23 NIITE NCT ST NIITE NIGHTTIME HOURS
While awaiting authorization for Runway
10 departures to use the NIITE DP, the RT
requests that aircraft be vectored to
mirror the NIITE DP.
While awaiting authorization for Runway 10
departures to use the NIITE (or other appropriate
procedure), the RT requests that RWY 10 departures
be vectored in accordance with TRACON procedures
- up the Bay (~330° heading) to join the NIITE or be
vectored up to the vicinity of NIITE, thence vectored
to the vicinity of GOBBS (and if southbound), thence
via a southbound vector remaining well off the land.
24 050°
HEADING
NCT ST SFO 050° HEADING
NIGHTTIME HOURS
APPLICABLE TO SFO AND OAK FLIGHTS
The RT supports the use the 050° heading
from SFO Runways 01 and a comparable
OAK Rwy 30 heading down the Bay at
night. Runway 01 departures should not
be increased, rather use a 050 heading in
lieu of flying a procedure over the
peninsula for aircraft with southern
departures.
Use of a “down the Bay” heading -- ~ 050° heading
for SFO and a comparable heading for OAK south
departures is important procedure to reducing noise
impact, but not to imply that the Roundtable is
requesting increased use of Runways 1 for
departure.
25 RWY 28
STRAIGHT
OUT DEP
NIGHTTIME
RWY DEP
NCT LT RWY 28/10 NIGHTTIME HOURS
STRAIGHT-OUT DEPARTUES
During the nighttime hours only—Is there
any ability to eliminate or raise the 3,000’
altitude limit on these departures?
Notwithstanding any existing airspace constraints,
do the nighttime hours allow any flexibility in these
constraints that could allow deleting the 3,000’ level-
off or do aircraft have the ability to file for the GAP
SEVEN departure that does not have a top altitude.
26 RWY 28
DEP INCL
ODO +
NIGHTTIME
RWY DEP
NCT ST RWY 28/10 NIGHTTIME HOURS
Between 10pm and 7am, the RT requests
use of SFO’s long-standing preferential
runways for departure: Runways 10 then
Runways 28 (TRUKN or NIITE) and then
Runways 01. The TRUKN is similar to the
legacy Shoreline departure up the Bay.
In accordance with NCT SOP. When aircraft use the
SAHEY departure, aircraft should fly the procedure
as charted and not vector over populated areas.
27 RWY 28
DEP INCL
ODO +
NIGHTTIME
RWY DEP
NCT LT RWY 28/10 NIGHTTIME HOURS
Using the decommissioned DUMBARTON
EIGHT procedure, create either an RNAV
overlay of this procedure or create a new
procedure with the same fixes used as
waypoints for Runway 10L/R.
Creating an RNAV procedure based on the
DUMBARTON EIGHT procedure will maintain legacy
noise abatement procedures that keep aircraft over
the bay, especially for nighttime flights.
28 RWY 28
STRAIGHT
OUT DEP
NCT LT Determine if the existence of a VFR flyway
or other conflicting airspace use off the
coastline in the vicinity of the extended
Runways 28 centerline, leads to Runway
28 straight-out departures being required
to level off at 3000’.
If this altitude restriction is due to VFR airspace,
determine if a modification of this VFR airspace is
warranted in the current Class B Airspace
Modification process. If due to other airspace
restriction, what actions could be taken to
ameliorate this conflict.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 12 of 57
29 CNDEL NCT ST Use Bay and Pacific Ocean for overflights
as much as possible.
From the CNDEL waypoint, direct aircraft to a
waypoint in the Pacific Ocean – potentially to the
GOBBS waypoint in the ocean, then to WAMMY,
before flying to PORTE. This would be the preferred
solution as it would greatly reduce negative noise
impacts because planes would be flying over water,
rather than directly over people’s homes.
30 CNDEL NCT ST This procedure should be flown as
charted including flying over the CNDEL
flyover waypoint and flying to the PORTE
fly-by waypoint as specified in the
departure procedure.
This reduces conflicts with SSTIK coming from SFO
and reduces vectoring of both procedures, allowing
SSTIK to utilize the Bay to gain altitude.
Avoid any vectors before CNDEL; after CNDEL, avoid
vectors as long as possible, avoid vectors that fly
down the Peninsula to waypoints beyond PORTE.
If vectoring is required for safety only -- minimize
overflight of populated areas.
If vectoring over the Bay and Ocean, use of the NIITE
waypoints of NIITE and GOBBS for aircraft routing
might be appropriate routing.
31 CNDEL WSC LT Determine if a revised southbound
transition (with additional waypoints) for
the CNDEL procedure could “contain” the
flight paths further west (perhaps over the
ocean) to allow expanded clear space for
possible modification of the SSTIK
departure.
Utilizing the OAK HUSSH departure procedure during
daytime hours should help avoid conflicts with SFO
SSTIK, reduce the need for vectoring, increase the
separation between these flight paths, and increase
safety.
From the CNDEL waypoint, direct aircraft to a
waypoint in the Pacific Ocean – potentially to the
GOBBS waypoint, then to WAMMY, before flying to
PORTE. This would be the preferred long term
solution as it would greatly reduce negative noise
impacts because planes would be flying over water,
rather than directly over people’s homes.
32
CNDEL WSC ST Determine if a southbound transition for
CNDEL could effectively use flight over
bodies of water to gain altitude before
flying over populated areas.
Such a southbound transition should not move noise
to noise-sensitive areas not under the published
CNDEL Departure and should not interfere with a
possible expanded SSTIK departure path.
33
CNDEL NCT LT CNDEL
NIGHTTIME HOURS
For OAK southbound aircraft, until the
NIITE southbound transition has been
finalized, use of the NIITE/HUSSH DP or
vectors to replicate the NIITE/HUSSH DP
with a vector from GOBBS to the south to
remain offshore would be a preferred
nighttime alternative.
For OAK southbound aircraft, use of the left turn
down the Bay (~135° heading) with no flight over
sensitive areas is also supported.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 13 of 57
34 SSTIK WSC LT Use Bay and Pacific Ocean for overflights
as much as possible.
From the SSTIK waypoint, direct aircraft to a
waypoint in the Pacific Ocean – potentially to the
GOBBS waypoint, then to WAMMY, before flying to
PORTE. This would be the preferred long term
solution as it would greatly reduce negative noise
impacts because planes would be flying over water,
rather than directly over people’s homes.
35 SSTIK WSC LT Create an RNAV overlay of the OFFSHORE
ONE procedure to guide aircraft higher
over the Bay before turning to a waypoint
located in the ocean.
Using the legacy OFFSHORE procedure, create an
RNAV overlay to keep aircraft higher and widely
dispersed over the peninsula as they fly to the ocean
(instead of down the peninsula) to WAMMY, before
flying to PORTE.
36 SSTIK NCT ST Use the OFFSHORE ONE procedure for
aircraft departures. Higher altitude over
water is preferred.
While awaiting the development of an OFFSHORE
ONE RNAV overlay, NCT is requested to use the
OFFSHORE departure procedure for flights to
Southern California destinations such as: LGB, SNA,
SAN, SBA and Mexican airspace.
Planes should be directed to fly as high as possible
over the SEPDY waypoint (over the Bay), allowing
them to be higher in altitude before turning over
land, with a steady altitude increase as they make
their way to the ocean. A relatively wide dispersal of
flight paths after the turn to the ocean is preferred.
37 SSTIK NCT ST Avoid non-safety vectoring prior to SEPDY
waypoint.
Early vectors cause dramatically increased noise to
residents. Once past SEPDY, a relatively wide
dispersal of flight paths to
the ocean is preferred. Avoid any vectoring that
bypasses PORTE. If vectors are needed for safety –
and
regardless of altitude – avoid vectors down the
Peninsula to waypoints beyond PORTE.
38 SSTIK
WSC LT Move SSTIK N + E as much as feasible to
allow maximum altitude gain before
turning to fly over land using the historic
SEPDY waypoint as a guide.
Create an additional waypoint over the ocean to
guide aircraft over water to PORTE such as the legacy
WAMMY waypoint associated with the OFFSHORE
procedure.
Determine if the minimum altitude required at SSTIK
can be raised before a left turn (vicinity of SSTIK).
Determine if a reduced airspeed (~220kts) can be
required until after established in the left turn from
SSTIK so aircraft climb at a higher angle of climb
approaching land.
A relatively wide dispersal of flight paths after the
turn to the ocean is preferred.
Attachment B: Executive Working Outline
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 14 of 57
39 DEPARTURE/
ARRIVAL
PROCEDURE
ASSIGNMENT
WSC ST The RT requests that the FAA determine if
any aircraft were assigned or re-assigned--
via preferential runway or otherwise–
from one departure or arrival to a
different departure or arrival.
40 TAKE-OFF
BACKBLAST
NOISE
RT/
SFO/
FAA
The RT recommends that SFO allocate
funds or work with the FAA to obtain
grant money to commission an updated
Technical Study of the backblast noise
from takeoffs at SFO. The RT will work
with SFO to develop Technical Study
parameters and will later review and
monitor improvements recommended in
the Technical Study.
Backblast noise from SFO takeoffs primarily affects
the communities south of Runway 1L/1R departures
as well homes more distant. Although Runways
10L/10R are used infrequently, backblast from these
takeoffs affects communities to the west of Runways
10L/R departures. Since technology improvements
are regularly attained, the RT requests that SFO to
conduct an up-to-date Technical Study of options to
include community input and without limitation on
cost of improvements.
41 MID-
PENINSULA
+
VECTORING
FAA
EQUIPMENT
NCT LT The RT requests that the FAA determine if
upgraded radar display equipment or
notations on the map using symbols
would be helpful to TRACON controllers to
increase the use of less impactful areas if
vectoring is required for safety for
departing and arriving flights.
The RT understands that controllers are limited in
their ability to effectuate vectoring over more
compatible land use. The controllers’ display shows
very vague outlined areas of Bay, Ocean and land
masses. The RT can work with NCT to determine
areas that could be identified on the radar scopes as
noise sensitive without increasing the complexity of
the scopes.
42 RT ST
+
LT
The SFO Airport and the SFO RT will support the FAA in their efforts. The RT will provide data
regarding land use and terrain height for areas throughout the RT region to assist NCT in using
less sensitive noise areas for vectoring. SFO and RT will work with airline representatives to
encourage use of “noise-friendlier” options for flight planning and operations. The RT will
provide community input to the FAA and will make recommendations to the FAA based on
community consensus for changes.
END
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable 455 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 T (650) 363-1853 F (650) 363-4849 www.sforoundtable.org
ATTACHMENT C
TECHNICAL DISCCUSION PACKAGE
SFO AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE RESPONSE TO FAA
INITIATIVE
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 16 of 57
INTRODUCTION
This attachment to the Roundtable’s response to the FAA Initiative is to expand on
information in the letter to Congressional Representatives Speier, Eshoo, and Farr,
detailing specific procedure operations as they fly today and any changes the
Roundtable is requesting. Each of the “Attachments” has the following sections:
Description – details the procedure(s) as they are flown today.
Executive Working Outline – Cross-references the items in this Attachment
with those in the Executive Working Outline (Attachment A) submitted in the
overall package to the Congressional representatives.
Primarily Impacted Cities – notes the cities that are most directly under the
flight path(s) of the procedures being described.
Noise Issues – the primary existing noise issues due to the procedure.
Roundtable Requests (Short Term, Long Term) – details what mitigation
efforts the Roundtable is requesting the FAA implement either in the short or long
term, depending on the detail of the request. For this document, short term is
defined as less than 9 months and long term is up to three years.
Collaboration – requests the appropriate agencies to work on each mitigation
effort. Initial Requested FAA Research – if applicable, requests the FAA research
specific operational items related to the mitigation efforts.
There are two airport diagrams shown here; the first one shows the runways with each
runway end labeled, and the second is SFO’s Fly Quiet map that shows the general
parameters of the Fly Quiet program in a graphic format.
Runways at SFO
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 17 of 57
SFO Noise Abatement Office Fly Quiet Program Illustration
In this document, the following abbreviations are used:
Mean Sea Level (MSL) – refers to an aircraft altitude in relation to its location
above the average level of the earth’s surface.
Above Ground Level (AGL) – refer to an aircraft altitude in relation to its
location relative to the ground below.
Nautical Miles (NM) – the length of a mile used for navigation purposes. All
references to miles in this document refer to nautical miles; a nautical mile is
6,076 feet.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 18 of 57
PROCEDURE: Woodside VORTAC
BDEGA+ ADJUSTMENT: 2.a.i.
WOODSIDE AND MID-PENINSULA
Woodside and Peninsula Flight Tracks
DESCRIPTION: Aircraft fly in the vicinity of the Woodside VORTAC (a ground-based
navigational aid) to arrive at SFO and OAK; this discussion will focus on aircraft arriving
at SFO. Aircraft fly over the Woodside VOR area when arriving from the ocean as well
as vectored aircraft from the south and north.
OCEANIC ARRIVALS: Aircraft that fly over this area from the ocean are typically flying
a course and altitude as assigned by ATC. A minority of these oceanic flights are
cleared via the Ocean Tailored Arrival (OTA), an optimized profile descent using idle
power and crossing Woodside VOR at approximately 6,000’ MSL. Oceanic arrivals not
on the OTA are assigned to cross Woodside VOR at or above 8,000’ MSL when traffic
permits. The SFO Noise Abatement Office tracks airline adherence to this procedure on
a weekly basis to determine if aircraft crossed the Woodside VOR above 7,700’ MSL
(because of instrument tolerances an altitude at or above 7,700’ is considered to be in
compliance with the 8,000’ requirement).1 While the noise office tracks adherence to the
procedure 24-hours a day, in its twice-weekly reports, the noise office publishes
adherence during the hours of 10:30 pm – 6:30 am.
1 http://www.flysfo.com/community-environment/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/woodside-vor
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 19 of 57
SERFR AND OTHER ARRIVALS FROM THE SOUTH: Approximately half of the aircraft
that fly over this area from the south, typically on the SERFR arrival, are vectored off
course to achieve and maintain required separation distance from other aircraft until the
aircraft can be sequenced in line for approach and landing at SFO.
BDEGA AND OTHER ARRIVALS FROM THE NORTH: Aircraft arriving from the north
on the BDEGA arrival are instructed to proceed on one of two paths – an east
downwind which overflies the Bay (“down the Bay”) or a west downwind flying over SFO
then southeast down the length of the Peninsula before making a “U-turn” or teardrop
turn toward SFO. Vectoring is utilized to achieve and maintain required separation
distance from other aircraft until the aircraft can be sequenced in line for approach and
landing at SFO; aircraft must be vectored from the final point on the BDEGA Standard
Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) approach procedure, which is over SFO called BRIXX.
EXECUTIVE OUTLINE: BDEGA 1-7, SERFR 8 - 9, BDEGA West 10, DYAMD 11 and
MENLO 16
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park and the
surrounding area as well as numerous Mid-Peninsula Cities.
NOISE ISSUES: It is important to note the topographic variety in the Bay Area. The
areas in the south Peninsula overflown by these procedures are located on large,
wooded lots that have low ambient noise levels similar to what can be found in a
national park setting. There are also peaks in the area that rise to 2,000’ MSL, including
the area around the Woodside VOR that is populated. In the early morning and late
night hours, aircraft noise is especially prevalent and intrusive given the low ambient
noise levels.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS:
Short Term
1. For daytime BDEGA and other arrivals from the north, the Roundtable requests
that the FAA use all available opportunities to assign arrivals from the north to an
east downwind “down the Bay.” Historically the east leg of the BDEGA arrival has
been used up to 57% of the time; in May 2016, the FAA reported use of the
BDEGA east leg was 28%, continuing a downward trend of using the east leg for
arrivals since May 2010.
2. The SFO RT recommends that the FAA increase the in-trail spacing of aircraft on
the SERFR arrival, flying the procedure as charted, which will decrease the need
for vectoring. For this arrival, the SFO RT also recommends increasing the
altitude of the arrivals on the assigned routes as well as the vector traffic.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 20 of 57
3. During the FAA-defined nighttime hours of 10 pm – 7 am, the Roundtable
requests every effort should be made to use the Bay for 100% of the arrivals
from the north and west, use the east downwind or the “down the Bay”
procedure.
Long Term
1. BDEGA Arrivals from the North and West: The SFO Roundtable requests
reinstatement of BDEGA FINSH transition in order to facilitate increased use of
the east downwind (“down the Bay”) to Runway 28R. The BDEGA ONE arrival
originally had two transitions from CORKK waypoint – one transition to BRIXX for
the west downwind and one transition to FNISH (in the middle of the Bay) for the
east downwind. The current BDEGA TWO arrival no longer shows the FNISH
transition.
2. BDEGA Arrivals from the North and West: The SFO Roundtable is available to
provide data to the FAA regarding terrain and land use for aircraft arriving on the
BDEGA east leg and can work with the FAA to move the east downwind leg of
the arrival over compatible land uses. In order to reduce vectoring on the
Peninsula, the SFO Roundtable requests the FAA to increase in-trail spacing on
the SERFR Arrival, on the DYAMD Arrival (to allow an increase in the BDEGA
East Downwind, and determine if an increase in the BDEGA in-trail spacing
would decrease vectoring.
COLLABORATION:
1. The SFO Roundtable is available to provide data to the FAA regarding land use
areas to assist in keeping procedures over compatible land uses as much as
feasible during the day. The goal during the nighttime hours is to avoid flight
over noise-sensitive land uses as much as feasible, even if it means a few
additional track miles.
2. The SFO Roundtable will work with airline representatives to request that during
the night time hours, airlines file oceanic flight plans that follow the path of
BDEGA arrival for an FAA assigned east downwind for Runway 28R (down the
Bay procedure) instead of flying over the peninsula.
3. The SFO Roundtable will work with airline representatives to request that during
the night time hours, airlines file routes from the south to a point east of the Bay
in order to use a noise-friendlier approach to Runway 28R.
4. The SFO Roundtable requests that NCT update its SOP to reflect using a “down
the Bay” procedure is preferred during nighttime hours.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 21 of 57
REQUESTED FAA RESEARCH:
1. Determine if the BDEGA transition to FINSH can be reinstated. If so, determine a
timeline for this revised procedure to be included for publication.
2. The SFO Roundtable requests that the FAA research to compare the previous
Golden Gate arrival with the current BDEGA arrival to determine what changes
have been made in actual flight tracks with regard to location of lateral paths,
narrowing of path and concentration of aircraft. The previous Golden Gate arrival
directed aircraft to fly a 140° heading after SFO/BRIXX, but the BDEGA directs
aircraft to fly a 140° track after BRIXX. While this change seems minor - flying a
track instead of a heading - it would result in a more concentrated invariable
path, contrasted with using a heading, which, depending on the direction and
velocity of wind could create somewhat dispersed paths.
3. The SFO Roundtable requests that the FAA research reasons for the continued
increased use of the BDEGA west leg from May 2010 – present.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 22 of 57
PROCEDURE: Visual Arrivals, Foster City
Arrivals
ADJUSTMENTS: 1.b.iii., 1.b.iv.,
1.b.v.
DESCRIPTION: Runways 28L and 28R are the primary runways for landing at SFO
when the airport is using the West Plan which is 85% of the time. Runways 28L and
28R are each served by a precision electronic Instrument Landing System (ILS). The
lateral path for the Runway 28L ILS goes over the city of Foster City while the lateral
path for Runway 28R ILS is slightly offshore. An ILS approach is used when the SFO
weather is IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) and pilots cannot visually see
the airport and must rely on their instruments to be guided to the runway.
During VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions), aircraft flying visually to 28L will
generally replicate the Runway 28L ILS lateral path which provides separation from the
Runway 28R lateral path. Aircraft flying visually to Runway 28R can fly offset visual
approaches such as the FMS Bridge Visual Runway 28R or the RNAV (RNP) Runway
28R. These Runway 28R offset visual courses fly closer to the center of the Bay and do
not intercept the Runway 28R ILS lateral path until just past the San Mateo Bridge.
There is no offset approach for Runway 28L.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: RWY 28 Approaches 12 – 15
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Foster City, Menlo Park and other bayside cities.
NOISE ISSUES: Aircraft in a landing configuration is also known as a ‘dirty’
configuration, which means that the landing gear and flaps are deployed for the
impending landing. Each of these pieces of the aircraft that extrude - the flaps, speed
brakes, landing gear and the engines all contribute to noise generated by an aircraft on
FMS Bridge Visual Approach
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 23 of 57
arrival. When air travels over these extended surfaces, it is disrupted by the different
surfaces coming into contact with the air. The more surfaces come in contact with the
air, the louder the aircraft will be to those on the ground. At this point, aircraft are
approximately seven miles from the airport at altitudes below 2,000’ MSL. This can be
very disruptive to sleep as well as to activities of daily life.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS:
Short Term:
1. Dual Visual Approaches: Whenever there are arrivals to both Runway 28L and
28R, and VMC conditions allow, aircraft for Runway 28R should be assigned to fly
the FMS Bridge Visual Runway 28R or RNAV (RNP) Runway 28R (as capable),
Quiet Bridge Visual or other noise friendlier approach to land on Runway 28R.
2. Single Stream Visual Approaches: Regardless of the time of day, and when
conditions and traffic allow, whenever there is a single stream operation to only
one runway, aircraft should arrive only on Runway 28R and should be assigned to
fly the FMS Bridge Visual 28R or RNAV (RNP) Rwy 28R (as capable), Quiet
Bridge Visual or other “noise friendlier” approach to land on Runway 28R.
3. During the nighttime hours ATC should make every effort to coordinate traffic
arrivals to create a single stream of traffic to land only on Runway 28R.
Depending on weather conditions, aircraft would be expected to fly the FMS
Bridge Visual 28R, the RNAV (RNP) Runway 28R, (or if conditions require) the
ILS 28R or other approach to Runway 28R which minimizes noise impact to
Foster City and other Bayside communities.
4. With air traffic control anticipating these arrivals to the right runway, efforts can be
made to reduce any time spent waiting for aircraft to depart Runway 28L and
coordinate these arrivals and departures.
Long Term
1. Research the feasibility of creating dual offset RNAV, RNAV (RNP) or other type
of approach to Runway 28L and to Runway 28R which would create two offset
paths closer to the middle of the Bay with both Runway 28L path and 28R path
remaining well clear of Foster City and other bayside communities until past the
San Mateo Bridge when aircraft would then line up with each runway for landing.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 24 of 57
TEAL LINE: existing 28L ILS. PINK LINE: existing 28R ILS. GRAY LINE: existing RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28R. ORANGE
LINE: existing FMS Bridge Visual Approach 28R. GREEN LINE: Concept for a possible 28L offset RNAV approach.
BLUE LINE: Concept for a possible 28R offset RNAV approach. ALL POINTS AND LINES APPROXIMATE.
COLLABORATION:
1. The SFO Roundtable will work with NCT management to illustrate the
importance of the use of Runway 28R instead of Runway 28L during periods of
single stream operations and the critical nature of nighttime operations which
might require managing arrival traffic to create a single stream of traffic to 28R.
2. The SFO Roundtable will provide information and community input to the FAA
regarding the process of creating, if feasible, of dual satellite-based Runway 28L
and 28R offset approaches closer to the middle of the Bay.
REQUESTED FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 25 of 57
PROCEDURE: NIITE ADJUSTMENTS: 1.f.iii, 2.a.ii., 2.a.ii.(c)., 2.f.i.,
2.f.vi.
NIITE Procedure
DESCRIPTION: The NIITE departure is designed to be used only during nighttime
hours as a noise abatement procedure when the volume is light and typically used by
aircraft departing Runway 01 L/R at SFO during nighttime hours; aircraft will use the
NIITE departure off Runway 28 L/R, but it is more commonly used off Runway 01. After
takeoff, the aircraft flies northeast to a waypoint approximately six miles northeast of
SFO called MDBAY. At this point aircraft turn towards the north to the NIITE waypoint,
located approximately 12 miles north of MDBAY just north of Treasure Island, then
northbound or eastbound aircraft turn to the north to the REBAS waypoint over
Richmond, and westbound aircraft fly west to the GOBBS waypoint located
approximately 11 miles west of the Golden Gate Bridge in the Pacific Ocean. The
GOBBS portion of the procedure is charted, but has not been adopted for use by
Northern California TRACON on this procedure. This procedure replaced the
conventional navigation QUIET departure.
EXECUTIVE OUTLINE: NIITE 23
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Pacifica, Millbrae,
San Francisco, South San Francisco and other mid-Peninsula communities.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 26 of 57
NOISE ISSUES: Aircraft overflying compatible land uses reduce the number of citizens
experiencing aircraft overflights during nighttime hours. Aircraft that can use the NIITE
procedure instead of flying over the peninsula can reduce noise impacts for thousands
of residents each night. Aircraft flying over the peninsula are overflying areas rich in
diverse topography. This impacts how cities under the departure path experience
aircraft noise; there are numerous ridges and peaks leading to valleys that experience
aircraft noise differently that if it was all flat land. Aircraft using Runway 01 L/R also
generate back blast noise from when aircraft start their departure roll to lifting off the
ground. This reverberating noise is difficult to mitigate and very intrusive to cities west of
Runway 01 L/R.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS
Short Term
1. Southbound Transition: While undergoing the formal process of amending the
NIITE departure to add a transition for southbound aircraft past GOBBS and
adopting GOBBS for use, the Roundtable requests that NORCAL TRACON
work with the SFO RT to determine if an interim informal procedure based on
TRACON vectors might be feasible during the nighttime hours only to
approximate the NIITE departure which would be heading up the Bay to NIITE,
then west to GOBBS, then south-south-east to the PORTE or WAMMY
waypoint, remaining clear of the shore. While the Roundtable is asking for the
NIITE procedure to be used, it is not requesting increased use of Runway 01
L/R for departures, especially at night.
2. Keep aircraft on the NIITE procedure as much as possible to reduce vectoring;
aircraft remaining on the NIITE procedure until the REBAS waypoint (for
eastbound flights not affecting San Francisco or San Mateo Counties) located
near the city of Richmond will keep aircraft over compatible land uses. In the
future, when the NIITE southbound transition is implemented, the SFO
Roundtable requests that the NIITE south be adhered to in its entirely without
vectoring.
3. Runway 10L/R: While undergoing the necessary research and procedure
development to enable Runway 10 L/R departures to use the published NIITE
departure, the SFO Roundtable requests that NORCAL TRACON use its
longstanding noise abatement procedure to vector Runway 10 L/R departing
aircraft up the Bay (approximate heading of 330°), then vector as needed for
routes of flight such as from NIITE to GOBBS (if the destination is to the west or
south), in accordance with guidance for westbound aircraft in NCT 7110.65:
Between the hours of 10:00 pm - 7:00 am local (Sundays to 8:00 am), vector
oceanic departures over the Bay to pass over the north end of the Golden Gate
Bridge.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 27 of 57
4. While not increasing the actual number of aircraft using Runway 01 L/R, the
Roundtable urges the for those aircraft using Runways 1L/1R, that the FAA
continue to use the 050° heading option for southbound flights at night instead
of the SSTIK procedure for south-bound departures.
Long Term
BEIGE LINE (approximate): Depicts current SFO NIITE Departure. PINK LINE (approximate): Depicts OAK
HUSSH Departure. BLUE LINE: illustrates one concept option for the NIITE/HUSSH Departure South
Transition. Other options can be designed as long as they remain well clear of the shoreline and remain
clear of any restricted airspace.
1. NIITE Southbound Transition: The SFO Roundtable is in agreement with FAA
Initiative Adjustment 2.f.i and formally requests that the FAA add a transition to
the NIITE departure for southbound aircraft.
Without presuming to technically design such a south transition, it would seem
that this highly desirable southbound destination transition might be comprised of
a single, simple “add-on” leg, using the existing NIITE departure to the GOBBS
waypoint, and thence via already largely existing waypoints and flight paths
mirroring much of the PORTE departure to PORTE intersection. In addition, the
routing of the OFFSHORE departure may present an additional option using the
WAMMY waypoint. The SFO Roundtable understands that the design of
professional flight procedures encompasses far more than a line drawn on a
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 28 of 57
map, and understands that airspace use and airspace restrictions are significant
challenges in this process.
The possible southbound transition for the NIITE departure depicted above
contains just two concepts to consider. The “add-on” paths depicted seem
desirable not only because they keep aircraft largely over the Pacific Ocean, but
also because a significant portion of the “add-on” paths are routinely used in the
PORTE and OFFSHORE departures. Many other paths for this southbound
transition could be designed that would also keep aircraft over the ocean.
Once implemented, the concept for the NIITE southbound transition would be
that during night time hours, the airline dispatcher would file for the NIITE
departure with the new southbound transition. At the time of takeoff, if conditions
and SFO Tower/TRACON workloads permit, an aircraft departing Runway 01 L/R
will be offered the option of the 050° heading down the Bay departure instead of
the filed NIITE/south transition.
2. NIITE Departure with Runway 10 takeoffs authorized: The SFO Roundtable
requests that the NIITE departure and all transitions be amended to include
authorization for its safe use by aircraft taking off from Runway 10 L/R.
COLLABORATION:
NIITE Southbound Transition & NIITE Departure with Runway 10 takeoffs
authorized:
1. The SFO Roundtable will provide input regarding the new southbound
transition and will elicit community input and response to the design of the
new NIITE southbound transition and Runway 10 L/R NIITE authorization.
REQUESTED INITIAL FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 29 of 57
PROCEDURE: 050° Heading Off Runway 01 ADJUSTMENTS: 2.e.ii., 2.g.ii.
Runway 01 L/R Flight Tracks
DESCRIPTION:
Aircraft departing during nighttime hours on Runways 1L/1R for southern destinations
typically fly the SSTIK departure; the NIITE departure, the published noise abatement
procedure, is typically only used for aircraft with northern or eastern destinations. During
nighttime hours only and when traffic permits, ATC can assign a Runway 1L/1R
departure to fly an initial heading of 050° with further right turns down the Bay until
reaching a higher altitude and then direct them on course to their destination. This 050°
initial heading can also be used to allow eastbound aircraft to gain additional altitude
before turning them onto an easterly heading which reduces noise impact for East Bay
residents. The 050° initial heading was originally created through collaboration between
the Roundtable and TRACON, to help reduce noise impacts at night.
Typically, aircraft departing from OAK Runway 30 at night will also use the Bay for
aircraft to climb before flying over land.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 050 Heading 24, Takeoff Backblast Noise 39, Mid-Peninsula
+Vectoring 40
IMPACTED CITIES: Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Francisco, South
San Francisco and other north Peninsula cities.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 30 of 57
NOISE ISSUES: Aircraft using compatible land uses reduce the number of citizens
experiencing aircraft overflights during nighttime hours. Aircraft that can use the 050°
heading procedure instead of flying over the Peninsula and San Francisco can reduce
noise impacts for thousands of residents each night. Aircraft flying over the Peninsula
are overflying areas rich in diverse topography. This impacts how cities under the
departure path experience aircraft noise; there are numerous ridges and peaks leading
to valleys that experience aircraft noise. Aircraft using Runway 01 L/R also generate
back blast noise from when aircraft start their departure roll to lifting off the ground. This
reverberating noise is extremely difficult to mitigate and very intrusive to cities
southwest of Runway 01 L/R.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS:
Short Term
1. Use the 050° heading at night to the maximum extent feasible for aircraft departures
to southern destinations instead of the SSTIK departure procedure that flies over the
Peninsula and San Francisco. The request for maximum use of the 050° heading
departure procedure is not a request to increase the number of flights using
Runways 1L/1R since back blast from Runways 1L/1R departures have a noise
impact on the cities southwest of the departure end of Runways 1L/1R.
2. The Roundtable also requests the use of a comparable heading down the Bay for
southbound flights taking off from OAK.
Long Term
Continue flying the 050 heading when able during nighttime hours.
REQUESTED FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 31 of 57
PROCEDURE: Opposite Direction
Operations
ADJUSTMENTS: 2.e.i., 2.e.ii., 2.e.iii., 2.g.i.,
2.g.ii.
Runway 28 Departure Options Runway 10L/R Radar Flight Tracks
RUNWAYS 28 DEPARTURES including
OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPERATIONS
DESCRIPTION: San Francisco International Airport has two pair of intersecting
runways. The two runways oriented north and south (1L/19R and 1R/19L) are shorter
than the two runways oriented east and west (28L/10R and 28R/10L). The majority of
takeoffs use runways 1L and 1R. However, some aircraft which are heavily loaded (fuel,
passengers, cargo) cannot safety takeoff from the shorter runways and must use the
longer runways (28L and 28R).
When an aircraft requires the longer runway for takeoff, there are typically three
departure choices:
1. Runways 28L or 28R flying straight out the “gap” to the ocean coastline. This is
the most impactful departure with noise events to residents reaching 100 dBA.
2. Runways 28L or 28R with an immediate right turn after takeoff towards the Bay.
(TRUKN departure procedure, formerly Shoreline, going up the bay).
3. During nighttime hours only, there may be an option to takeoff from Runways 10L
or 10R flying over the Bay using a highly regulated procedure called Opposite
Direction Operations.
DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME:
Departing jet traffic flying straight out from Runway 28 are initially climb restricted to
3,000’ MSL to allow for possible VFR traffic in a VFR flyway or other airspace
restriction. While the departing jets are not usually kept to 3,000’ MSL for a long time,
any level off in this high noise departure is significant.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 32 of 57
NIGHTTIME:
SFO has had a long-standing nighttime preferential runway use program in place. This
program’s goal is to utilize the Bay as much as possible for nighttime procedures to
keep aircraft over compatible land uses and not fly over populated areas. For SFO, this
means use of the Bay for arrivals and departures as much as possible. The preferred
nighttime runway use is to depart to the east from Runway 10 L/R over the Bay, and
arrive from the west on Runway 28 L/R, which is the typical arrival runway. This type of
operation is called Opposite Direction Operations (ODO) when aircraft depart and arrive
over the same flight path but at different points in time.
The ability to use the opposite direction operations procedure is limited. Its use is largely
dependent on three factors: 1) weather conditions including ceiling, visibility and wind
direction and velocity; 2) performance capabilities of the aircraft (primarily whether it can
safely takeoff with even a small amount of tailwind or needs a headwind); and 3) the
location and distance of any aircraft approaching to land on Runways 28.
ODO regulations have changed over the years since the inception of SFO’s nighttime
preferential runway use program. It is now more regulated and the arriving and
departing aircraft must have more distance between them to use ODO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: RWY 28 Straight Out Departures 25 – 28
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Francisco, South
San Francisco.
NOISE ISSUES: The San Francisco Bay area is an area rich in diverse topography.
This impacts how cities under the departure path experience aircraft noise; there are
numerous ridges and peaks leading to valleys that experience aircraft noise differently
than if it was all flat land, including San Bruno Mountain close to the airport and Sweeny
and Milagra ridges closer to the ocean. At night, some aircraft that require a longer
runway that aren’t on an ODO departure typically depart “out the gap” on Runway 28
L/R (i.e. straight out), flying west over numerous densely populated cities. These aircraft
include those that are flying long distances to Asia and are large, fully loaded wide body
aircraft. The ability to utilize Runway 10 L/R more will greatly alleviate thousands of
residents being disturbed by Runway 28 gap departures in the middle of the night.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS:
Short Term
1. The SFO Roundtable requests that, during the nighttime hours and traffic
permitting, TRACON use a longstanding TRACON procedure for aircraft taking
off on Runway 10 L/R by vectoring them north up the Bay (using an approximate
330°heading) and then, if westbound, vectoring them to the Pacific Ocean. The
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 33 of 57
following excerpts from presentations and TRACON documents show the
existing precedent for using this type of procedure.
SFO Tower Noise Abatement Primer (4/3/13) presented to SFO
Roundtable Training:
“330 and 050 heading on mid-shift”
NCT 7110.65D (8/20/15):
Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 local (Sundays to 0800), vector
oceanic departures over the Bay to pass over the north end of the Golden
Gate Bridge.
SFO Tower Noise Abatement Primer (4/3/13) presented to SFO
Roundtable Training:
Mid-shift runway 10 oceanic departures taken over north tower GGB
(NCT)
2. The SFO Roundtable requests that the SFO Airport Director coordinate with the
FAA to maintain the existing SFO ANAO nighttime preferential runway use in
place, including Runway 10 L/R as the preferred nighttime runway for takeoffs;
aircraft using the SAHEY departure should not be vectored and stay over the
bay.
3. The SFO Roundtable requests that the SFO Airport Director work with the
Roundtable to coordinate outreach efforts to educate dispatchers and pilots on
the importance of considering the use of a Runway 10 L/R ODO departure to the
impacted communities.
4. When Runway 28 L/R must be used for nighttime departures, the SFO
Roundtable requests use of the GAP SEVEN departure that does not have a top
altitude restriction.
Long Term
1. It should be determined if any VFR flyway results in Runway 28 straight-out
departures being assigned a 3,000’ altitude restriction. If so, determine if a
modification of any VFR flyway is warranted in the current Class B Airspace
Modification process to allow unrestricted climbs for SFO Runway 28 jet traffic. If
the altitude restriction is due to other factors, determine if the other factors can be
modified to allow unrestricted climb.
2. Create a procedure that includes the ability of aircraft to depart Runway 10 L/R
on a heading that isn’t in the direct path of aircraft arriving on Runway 28, such
as making an immediate left turn after takeoff or flying to the east of the Runway
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 34 of 57
28 arrival path to provide lateral separation; for vertical separation, use altitude
restrictions for the departing aircraft.
3. Create a Runway 10L/R RNAV departure that mirrors the decommissioned
DUMBARTON EIGHT procedure, keeping aircraft over the bay to gain altitude
before turning. Mirroring the DUMBARTON could include making adjustments to
SAHEY to ensure aircraft will remain over the bay before turning towards their
destination.
COLLABORATION:
1. The SFO Roundtable will provide information to the FAA to assist in a review of
options for aircraft to use Runway 10 L/R that does not use the same flight path
as a Runway 28 L/R arrival.
2. The SFO Roundtable urges the consistent use of effective noise abatement
procedures such as the long-standing TRACON nighttime noise abatement
procedure for aircraft taking off from Runway 10, to fly an approximate 330°
heading up the Bay and thence out the Golden Gate.
3. The Roundtable will work with the FAA to re-design the SAHEY departure to
mirror historic flight tracks that keep aircraft over the bay.
REQUESTED FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 35 of 57
PROCEDURE: NIGHTTIME OFFLOADS/ROUTES ADJUSTMENTS: 3.d.i.
DESCRIPTION: Flights that take-off and land at SFO and OAK during the nighttime
hours significantly impact hundreds of thousands of residents in San Francisco and San
Mateo counties. Widespread resident reports indicate that their health is being seriously
compromised due to aircraft noise causing continual sleep deprivation. The Roundtable
believes that because of the serious impact on residents’ health, the FAA should take
extraordinary steps to decrease aircraft noise at night – including additional miles flown
by aircraft.
Many of the nighttime hours are also a time of increased flexibility for ATC due to
significantly fewer flight operations and a curfew at Mineta San Jose International
Airport beginning at 11:30 pm. These factors allow ATC to increase the use of already
existing noise abatement nighttime procedures as well as to consider the possibility of
adopting additional noise abatement nighttime procedures.
Nighttime hours are generally stated to be 10:00 pm-7:00 am. (CNEL, SFO Noise
Abatement website, TRACON SOP), although the SFO Noise Abatement Office also
highlights the hours of 1:00 am - 6:00 am for desired voluntary use of the preferential
runway use.
The ability of ATC to utilize alternative nighttime procedures is not tied to the hands on a
clock, but rather relies on the decreased number of flights being operated during
nighttime hours. Thus, if weather delays cause originally scheduled evening flights to
have their takeoff delayed into the nighttime hours, some nighttime quieter procedures
cannot be used until later in the nighttime when flight operations actually decrease.
Several noise abatement departures have been published (NIITE & HUSSH departures
for SFO and OAK flights to the north, west and east), SFO Runway 28 take-offs with an
immediate right turn by the Bay (TRUKN – formerly Shoreline).
In addition, NORCAL TRACON makes use of additional important nighttime hours’
procedures (SFO Runway 1L/R southbound with an initial 050° heading; OAK Runway
30 southbound with an initial ~130°heading; SFO Runway 10L/R Opposite Direction
Operations take-off procedure; Runway 28R single stream approaches only; noise
abatement approaches to Runway 28R (FMS Bridge Visual, Quiet Bridge Visual, RNAV
(RNP) 28R.)
However, there are still flight paths which cause significant noise impact to families in
the middle of the night: SSTIK & CNDEL for southbound flights, BDEGA and other
arrivals from the north using the west downwind, Oceanic arrivals over Woodside to
MENLO, 28L approaches over Foster City, SERFR and other arrivals from the south to
MENLO.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 36 of 57
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BDEGA 7, SERFR 9, BDEGA West 10, RWY 28 Approach
14, MENLO 17, NIITE/HUUSH 19, 20, 21, 23, 050 Heading 24, Rwy 28 Straight Out 26,
27
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: San Francisco and the cities in San Mateo County.
NOISE ISSUES: Aircraft fly the Oceanic arrivals during periods of low traffic volumes,
typically at night, during late night and early morning hours. The areas in the south
peninsula overflown by these procedures are located on large, wooded lots that have
low ambient noise levels similar to what can be found in a national park setting. There
are also peaks in the area that rise to 2,000’ MSL, including the area around the
Woodside VOR that is populated. In the early morning and late night hours, aircraft
noise is especially prevalent given the low ambient noise levels that can be extremely
disruptive to sleep. Although the total number of nighttime flights may not seem high,
the impact of these overflights throughout the night is devastating to the residents. As
an example, on July 19, 2016, between the hours of 4:33 am and 6:53 am, there were
seven flights from the Hawaiian Islands that flew over this area as close as 10 minutes
apart as shown below:
UAL 1557 landed at 4:26am
UAL 396 landed at 4:33am
UAL 1746 landed at 4:43am
UAL 1724 landed at 5:03am
VIR 48 landed at 5:40am
UAL 1580 landed at 6:05am
UAL 1575 landed at 6:53am
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS
Short Term:
During the nighttime hours ONLY, the Roundtable requests:
1. NIITE/HUSSH transition for southbound flights: While awaiting the
publication of this NIITE southbound transition, it is requested that aircraft be
vectored in according with long-standing NCT procedures (SFO 330° heading up
the Bay) and (SFO and OAK) out to the ocean and southbound over the Pacific
Ocean.) The SFO RT also supports the NCT use of the 050° heading for SFO
southbound departures, however not increasing Runway 01 L/R utilization.
2. NIITE from Runways 10: While awaiting authorization to use NIITE departure
from Runways 10, (or in the failure to obtain such authorization), the RT requests
that aircraft be vectored to mirror the NIITE DP.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 37 of 57
3. NIITE/HUSSH transition for southbound flights: While awaiting the
publication of this southbound transition, determine if aircraft can file for SFO
QUIET SEVEN departure or the OAK SILENT departure and then be vectored in
accordance with NCT SOPs out to GOBBS waypoint and then southbound.
4. 050 Heading: The RT supports the use the 050° heading from SFO and a
comparable OAK Rwy 30 heading down the Bay at night. Runway 01 departures
should not be increased; rather, use a 050 heading in lieu of flying a procedure
over the peninsula for aircraft with southern departures.
5. Runway 28R nighttime straight-out departures: Determine if there is any
ability to eliminate the 3,000’ MSL altitude restriction.
6. 28L approaches over Foster City and north Peninsula: The Roundtable
requests that, all nighttime approaches be managed into a “single stream” of
airplanes, that (wind/weather permitting) this single stream of planes only uses
noise abatement approaches such as the Runway 28R FMS Bridge Visual, the
Runway 28R Quiet Bridge, or the RNAV (RNP) 28R and that this single stream of
planes landing only on Runway 28R. If conditions require an ILS approach, it is
requested that only Runway 28R be used. Continuing to land on 28R, rather than
sidestepping to 28L, can reduce noise to residents from approach thrust and
reverse thrust after landing.
7. Arrivals from the North: The SFO Roundtable requests that BDEGA and other
arrivals from the north be assigned only to the BDEGA East downwind (or
similar) for a “noise-friendlier” approach to only 28R.
8. ALL approaches: The SFO RT requests that, when feasible, during nighttime
hours and VMC conditions -- if any flights fly over sensitive areas -- every effort
be made which would allow aircraft to remain higher than typical and are
vectored so as to approach single stream using noise-friendlier approaches to
land on Runway 28R.
If an arrival must be made over Woodside (Oceanic) or the Peninsula
(BDEGA) or from the south (SERFR), every effort should be made to
keep aircraft higher than typical. This excess altitude could be
expeditiously dissipated by giving the aircraft a slightly longer path over
the Bay before intercepting an appropriate noise-friendly visual
approach to 28R. The amount of altitude increase over the sensitive
land use areas will be related to the available additional distance flown
to lose that altitude through whatever lateral path is flown. If the pilot
can anticipate the plan, he/she would be prepared for an expeditious
descent over the Bay prior to intercepting the typical FMS Bridge
Visual or other noise friendlier approach.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 38 of 57
Longer Term:
1. NIITE transition for southbound aircraft: This is FAA Initiative Feasible item
2.f.i.: The SFO Roundtable supports an immediate start to designing the
southbound transition for SFO and OAK flights on the NIITE departure. This NIITE
departure/southbound transition procedure will replace the SSTIK and CNDEL
departures during the nighttime hours.
2. NIITE: Determine if Runway 10 take-offs can be authorized to use the NIITE. If not,
create a departure to allow Runway 10 take-offs to make a left turn up the Bay to
NIITE waypoint.
3. BDEGA Arrivals from the North: The SFO Roundtable requests reinstatement of
the FINSH transition to the BDEGA arrival in order to facilitate increased use of the
BDEGA East downwind (“down the Bay”) to Runway 28R or the establishment of a
similar east downwind transition if there are technical concerns with the original
design.
4. Oceanic: The SFO RT will work with airline representatives and the FAA to
request that all nighttime arrivals from the north file for and fly an approach which
utilizes the Bay (such as the BDEGA East downwind) and substantially avoids
flight over non-compatible land uses.
5. SERFR: The SFO RT will work with airline representatives and the FAA to request
that all nighttime arrivals from the south (SERFR) file for a routing and Arrival that
would terminate east of the Bay for connection to an approach to SFO Runway
28R.
6. Nighttime Arrivals: The SFO Roundtable will work with airline representatives to
encourage them to file for SFO arrivals that avoid flight over sensitive areas. If
inbound aircraft choose to file for BDEGA, it is requested that only the BDEGA
East downwind be assigned to them.
COLLABORATION:
1. The SFO Roundtable will provide any required community data as well as
community input to the FAA to support all efforts to improve noise impacts during
the important night time hours.
REQUESTED INITIAL FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 39 of 57
This page is left intentionally blank.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 40 of 57
PROCEDURE: CNDEL ADJUSTMENTS: 1.a.ii, 1.b.ii, 2.a.ii(b)
CNDEL Departure Flight Tracks
DESCRIPTION: The CNDEL RNAV departure is typically used by aircraft departing
Runway 30 at Oakland International Airport (OAK). After takeoff, the aircraft flies north
a short distance over the Bay, then flies over the LEJAY and CNDEL waypoints, west of
the USS Hornet and the old naval air station Alameda, respectively. After the CNDEL
waypoint, the CNDEL departure procedure directs the aircraft to turn left to the PORTE
waypoint located just south of Half Moon Bay airport.
For southbound destinations, aircraft will often be vectored prior to the CNDEL
waypoint, at the LEJAY waypoint. FAA Initiative Phase 1, Appendix B notes that 46% of
CNDEL departures are on the procedure; this assumes 54% of aircraft flying the
CNDEL departure are vectored. Many of these flights turn south or southwest over the
Bay or towards southern portions of the City of San Francisco and cities in northern San
Mateo County. Often, this vectoring places CNDEL and SSTIK flights in a position to
compete for the same airspace.
Occasionally aircraft will fly over the Golden Gate Bridge, then turn to the south. Also,
aircraft will occasionally be vectored over the SFO VOR navigational aid on the airport,
then over Millbrae and Burlingame towards the PORTE waypoint or waypoints
downstream on their flight plan.
This procedure replaced the conventional navigation SKYLINE and COAST departures.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 41 of 57
EXECUTIVE OUTLINE: CNDEL 29 – 33
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica,
San Bruno, San Francisco, South San Francisco.
NOISE ISSUES: The San Francisco Bay area is an area rich in diverse topography.
This impacts how cities under the departure path experience aircraft noise; there are
numerous ridges and peaks leading to valleys that experience aircraft noise differently
that if it was all flat land. Between aircraft crossing the peninsula from the Bay to the
ocean, San Bruno Mountain State Park amplifies noise impacts for Brisbane, due to its
elevation relative to the City of Brisbane. For cities closer to the coast, the topography of
the coastal range, including Milagra and Sweeny ridges, amplifies noise impacts for
Pacifica residents from aircraft flying toward the PORTE waypoint. Planes flying at low
altitudes negatively affect all impacted cities.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS
As stated earlier, this procedure should be flown as charted and reduce the number of
aircraft vectored. Based on a month of data from July 2015, FAA Initiative Phase 1,
Appendix B notes that 46% of CNDEL departures are on the procedure; this assumes
54% of aircraft flying the CNDEL departure are vectored.
Short Term
1. In the existing procedure, fly the planes on the charted CNDEL departure as
published so that they fly over the CNDEL flyover waypoint THEN over the
PORTE waypoint as charted. This reduces conflicts with SSTIK coming from
SFO and reduces vectoring of both procedures, allowing SSTIK to utilize the Bay
to gain altitude before flying over populated areas.
2. Use the Bay and Pacific Ocean for overflight as much as possible. From the
CNDEL waypoint, direct aircraft to a waypoint in the Pacific Ocean – potentially
to the GOBBS waypoint in the ocean then to the WAMMY waypoint.
3. Use the GOBBS waypoint during nighttime hours to reduce overflights of the
Peninsula - (HUSSH departure).
4. In the existing procedure, avoid vectoring aircraft for non-safety reasons prior to
the CNDEL waypoint.
5. The SFO RT requests that the assignment of southbound vectors be delayed
until the aircraft has reached the ocean and PORTE waypoint to reduce aircraft
flying over San Francisco and down the Peninsula. Avoid vectoring aircraft over
San Francisco and over the Peninsula direct to waypoints beyond PORTE.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 42 of 57
Longer Term
1. Determine if the actual flight tracks of aircraft after CNDEL waypoint could be
“contained” to a more limited area such as west of the eastern shore of the Bay
(perhaps by an additional waypoint) that would decrease potential conflicts with
the SSTIK departure airspace to enable the SSTIK departure to be flown as
published.
2. The SFO Roundtable requests that the FAA determine if a southbound transition
for the CNDEL procedure could effectively use flight over bodies of water to
enable aircraft to gain altitude before flying over noise-sensitive land uses without
interfering with a possible expanded SSTIK departure path or shifting noise to
other communities.
3. Utilizing the OAK HUSSH departure procedure during daytime hours should help
avoid conflicts with SFO SSTIK, reduce the need for vectoring, increase the
separation between these flight paths, and increase safety. From the CNDEL
waypoint, direct aircraft to a waypoint in the Pacific Ocean – potentially to the
GOBBS waypoint, then to WAMMY, before flying to PORTE. This would be the
preferred long term solution as it would greatly reduce negative noise impacts
because planes would be flying over water, rather than directly over people’s
homes.
COLLABORATION:
1. The Roundtable is available to provide community input to the FAA with the use
of modeling or other tools to determine the effects of other noise friendlier
departure paths for flights using the OAK CNDEL departure, especially for
CNDEL southbound flights. Such options might include (but are not limited to)
flight over the waters of the Bay to the Pacific Ocean or flight over the Bay to
SFO and then over the Peninsula (primarily Millbrae and Burlingame) to PORTE
or flight down the Bay as far south as feasible, or other options that may
become known.
REQUESTED INITIAL FAA RESEARCH:
There is no additional research requested.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 43 of 57
PROCEDURE: SSTIK ADJUSTMENTS: 1.a.ii, 1.b.i, 1.b.ii, 1.b.iii,
2.a.ii(b)
SSTIK
Departure, SFO and CNDEL Departures, OAK
DESCRIPTION: The SSTIK RNAV departure is used by aircraft departing SFO
Runways 1L and 1R. After takeoff, the aircraft flies north a short distance over the Bay,
then flies over the SSTIK waypoint, located east of the City of Brisbane marina. For
southbound destinations, after SSTIK, the aircraft then typically makes a left turn to
head south to the PORTE waypoint, located just south of the Half Moon Bay airport.
This procedure replaced the conventional navigation PORTE departure. The new
SSTIK waypoint is located approximately 1 nautical mile south of the SEPDY waypoint
that is associated with the PORTE procedure; SEPDY is located east of the Baylands
Soil Processing facilities. The SSTIK waypoint is closer to downtown Brisbane than
SEPDY.
EXECUTIVE OUTLINE: SSTIK 34 – 38
PRIMARILY IMPACTED CITIES: Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, San
Francisco, South San Francisco as well as Millbrae, Burlingame and other Peninsula
cities.
NOISE ISSUES: The San Francisco Bay area is an area rich in diverse topography.
The topography of San Bruno Mountain State Park amplifies noise impacts for
Brisbane, due to its elevation relative to the City of Brisbane, and from low flying planes
that are vectored. Similarly, topography of the coastal range, including Milagra and
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 44 of 57
Sweeny ridges, amplifies noise impacts for Pacifica residents from aircraft flying toward
the PORTE waypoint. Planes flying at low altitudes negatively affect all impacted cities.
SFO ROUNDTABLE REQUESTS:
Short Term
Improved utilization of existing flight path and procedures:
1. Avoid issuing any non-safety vectors to aircraft for as long as feasible and no
earlier than when an aircraft is actually over the SEPDY flyover waypoint. Early
vectors cause dramatically increased noise to residents below these vectored
turns. After reaching the designated waypoint or intersection, continued flight up
the Bay (to attain higher altitude) is desirable. When a left turn is to be made, a
relatively wide dispersal of flight paths to the ocean is preferred.
2. Flights should be directed to fly as high as possible over the SEPDY waypoint
(over the bay), allowing them to be higher in altitude before turning over land,
with a steady altitude increasing as they make their way to the ocean.
3. Avoid vectoring aircraft down the Peninsula direct to waypoints beyond PORTE.
Aircraft should fly over the PORTE waypoint on the published procedure.
4. In the existing procedure, use the Bay and ocean for overflight as much as
possible.
5. In the existing procedure, utilize existing areas of compatible land use for
overflight.
6. For aircraft with destinations in Southern California including Long Beach Airport,
John Wayne Airport, San Diego International Airport, Santa Barbara Airport and
Mexican airspace, use the OFFSHORE ONE departure. This departure has been
an historic procedure that guides aircraft to the ocean to the WAMMY waypoint
instead of down the peninsula. A relatively wide dispersal of flight paths after the
turn to the ocean is preferred.
7. For aircraft with southeast destinations including Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport and McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, use the
TRUKN departure with a transition at TIPRE or SYRAH. This is consistent with
the legacy procedure of using the SFO departure procedure where aircraft were
vectored eastbound to the LINDEN VORTAC, a ground-based navigational aid.
8. The Roundtable understands the additional complexities added to air traffic
controllers by depicting city locations or densely populated areas on radar
displays. However, the Roundtable would like to determine the feasibility of
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 45 of 57
depicting the SEPDY waypoint on the scopes in an effort for aircraft to stay over
the Bay as long as possible. This would allow aircraft additional time to climb
over the Bay before turning.
Longer Term
1. SSTIK: Determine if a reduced climb airspeed can be assigned until reaching
3,000’ MSL or other higher altitude; a slower airspeed will allow the aircraft to
climb to a higher altitude in a shorter distance before overflying noise-sensitive
land uses. Determine if the minimum required altitude for ATC to initiate a left
turn can be raised.
2. Move the SSTIK waypoint north and east as much as feasible to allow maximum
altitude gain before turning west to fly over land, using the legacy SEPDY
waypoint as a guide. Remain over the Pacific Ocean until attaining a high
altitude.
3. Create an OFFSHORE RNAV overlay. An RNAV overlay of the OFFSHORE
departure would create a NextGen procedure that can utilize long-standing
waypoints in the ocean that are offshore, including waypoints that have
historically been over the water. Using these procedure waypoints as a guide,
establish RNAV waypoints consistent or west of WAMMY and SEGUL. A
relatively wide dispersal of flight paths after the turn to the ocean is preferred.
4. Create a SSTIK transition to GOBBS. Similar to the NIITE procedure, aircraft
would depart on the SSTIK procedure flying up the Bay instead of over the
peninsula to approximately the GOBBS intersection, then onto a waypoint in the
ocean such as WAMMY. This could be used for aircraft with southerly
destinations in California. This would be the preferred long term solution as it
would greatly reduce negative noise impacts because planes would be flying
over water, rather than directly over people’s homes.
COLLABORATION:
1. The SFO Roundtable will provide community input to the FAA to find an
appropriate location for moving the SSTIK waypoint east and north of its current
location, again using SEPDY as a guide, so planes can fly over the Bay for a
longer period of time, and thus increase altitude before heading west and flying
over residential areas.
2. Request the FAA provide modeling, noise monitoring, and/or other tools to
determine the effects of different waypoint options.
Attachment C: Technical Discussion Packages
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 46 of 57
3. The SFO Roundtable requests the FAA to allow planes to fly the charted
procedures and to reduce vectoring and when safety is not an issue as well as to
use higher altitudes when flying over noise-sensitive land uses and the use of
non-residential areas where feasible.
4. The SFO Roundtable will work with the SFO noise office and TRACON to
research use of the legacy LINDEN VORTAC transition to determine why it has
not been used within the last few years and determine which city pairs can utilize
this corridor via TIPRE or SYRAH.
REQUESTED INITIAL FAA RESEARCH:
1. FAA is requested to determine any conflicting airspace issues which would not
be available for the location of a new SSTIK waypoint.
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable 455 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 T (650) 363-1853 F (650) 363-4849 www.sforoundtable.org
ATTACHMENT D
SFO ROUNDTABLE RESPONSE TO FAA FEASIBILITY REPORT
Adjustment - 1.a.i.(a) (Altitude)– Not Feasible
Description: Evaluate raising altitude at MENLO waypoint to 5,000’.
Roundtable Response: This Adjustment contains two items: increasing the altitude at MENLO and
establishing a new waypoint. Based on instrument procedure design, the Roundtable understands
the altitude at MENLO must remain at the current altitudes. The SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement
(ANAO) Office and Northern California TRACON have an agreement that states when able, aircraft
will cross the MENLO intersection during visual conditions at 5,000’ AGL and 4,000’ AGL during
instrument conditions. The Roundtable requests this agreement stays in place and aircraft cross
MENLO at or close to 5,000’ AGL during visual conditions. The Roundtable also recommends the
creation of an RNAV visual approach to mirror the TIPP TOE Visual approach for 28L which would
specify crossing MENLO at 5,000-feet.
Adjustment - 1.a.ii. (Altitude) – Feasible
Description: Analyze reducing impacts of SSTIK, WESLA, and CNDLE departures.
Roundtable Response: This Adjustment contains language regarding three separate procedures.
1. SSTIK – The Roundtable advocates for SSTIK to be flown to the SEPDY waypoint and
vectored for safety purposes only, prior to the waypoint. While awaiting the development
of an OFFSHORE ONE RNAV overlay, NCT is requested to use the OFFSHORE
departure procedure for flights to Southern California. Planes should be directed to fly as
high as possible over the SEPDY waypoint (over the Bay), allowing them to be higher in
altitude before turning over land, with a steady altitude increase and relatively wide
dispersal of flight paths as they make their way to the ocean. The Roundtable requests
the FAA to research other possible flight alternatives utilizing the Bay and Pacific Ocean.
2. WESLA – This procedure should be flown as charted and allow aircraft to climb
unrestricted when there are no other air traffic conflicts.
3. CNDLE – The Roundtable advocates for CNDLE to be flown as charted and vectored for
safety purposes only, not for efficiency. The Roundtable would request the FAA to
research other possible lateral path options for the CNDLE southbound departures.
Additional information regarding the SSTIK and CNDLE can be found in Attachment B.
Adjustment - 1.b.i. (Track) – Feasible
Description: Analyze moving the SSTIK and PORTE departures more over water.
Roundtable Response: There are two procedures in this Adjustment; the majority of aircraft fly the
SSTIK departure, therefore the comments will focus on that procedure. Keeping aircraft over
compatible land uses (such as the Bay, Pacific Ocean, and non-residential areas) as much as
possible is key to noise abatement. For SSTIK, there are two bodies of water to use for aircraft
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 48 of 57
operations; on immediate departure, the San Francisco Bay and later in the Pacific Ocean for points
between the existing SSTIK and PORTE waypoints. The Roundtable advocates utilizing water as
much as possible for the SSTIK procedure to:
Fly over the Bay until the SSTIK waypoint, by moving SSTIK N + E as much as
feasible to allow maximum altitude gain before turning to fly over land using the
historic SEPDY waypoint as a guide. Preferably, the SSTIK should be flown to
GOBBS, then to WAMMY, before flying to PORTE, so that planes are flying over
water, rather than people’s homes. Fly the procedure as charted to PORTE waypoint instead of clearing aircraft to
subsequent waypoints downstream from SSTIK, bypassing PORTE. Aircraft
bypassing the PORTE waypoint lead to aircraft overflying larger portions of San
Mateo County instead of the ocean. Create an additional waypoint over the
ocean to guide aircraft over the water to PORTE, such as the legacy WAMMY
waypoint associated with the OFFSHORE procedure.
Fly the CNDEL to the CNDEL waypoint as charted, so as to create less
interference with SSTIK. Preferably, the CNDEL should be flown to GOBBS, so
as to maximize the airspace for which to create a new SSTIK waypoint as far
north and east of SEPDY. The CNDEL should be flown to GOBBS, then to
WAMMY, before flying to PORTE, so that planes are flying over water, rather
than people’s homes.
Since the publication of the Initiative, the PORTE departure procedure has been
decommissioned, however; the PORTE waypoint is still part of the National
Airspace System, used by many departure procedures.
Additional information regarding this Response can be found in Attachment B.
Adjustment - 1.b.ii. (Track) – Feasible
Description: Analyze reducing the impacts of SSTIK, WESLA, and CNDLE departures.
Roundtable Response: There are three procedures in this Adjustment.
1. SSTIK – This Adjustment addresses the track of the procedure. The comments in this
Adjustment relate specifically to the existing track and options for procedure modifications.
The SSTIK procedure can be dissected into parts, or segments, to look at how to solve the
overall issues by focusing on how the procedure flies: over the Bay, the peninsula, and the
ocean. The FAA Initiative Phase 1 shows that 99% of aircraft are compliant with the SSTIK
procedure, turning within 1 nautical mile of the initial waypoint that was designed to RNAV-
1 standards. While technically this is accurate, the further aircraft are turned before the
center of the waypoint, the lower they are over the peninsula. Aircraft turned before the
center of the waypoint then compound the noise issue when cleared to waypoints
downstream from PORTE.
2. With regard to the existing procedure, the SFO Roundtable requests:
a. That southerly vectors not be issued to an aircraft until an aircraft is actually over
SEPDY (avoid anticipatory turns approaching SPEDY). Once past SEPDY, a
relatively wide dispersal of flight paths to the ocean is preferred.
b. That the Bay, and waypoints such as GOBBS and WAMMY in the ocean be used for
overflight as much as possible.
c. That existing areas of non-residential land be used for overflight.
d. That assigning a southbound heading toward PORTE should be delayed as long as
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 49 of 57
feasible including flying to the ocean before turning south.
e. That vectoring aircraft down the Peninsula direct to PORTE and to waypoints beyond
PORTE should be avoided.
With regard to the longer term, the Roundtable would propose to move SSTIK north and
east as much as feasible to allow maximum altitude gain before turning to fly over land
using the historic SEPDY waypoint as a guide. The Roundtable would ultimately prefer a
SSTIK procedure that utilizes the entire Bay out to GOBBS, then to WAMMY and then to
PORTE.WESLA – This procedure should be flown as charted and allow aircraft to climb
unrestricted when there are no other air traffic conflictions.
3. CNDLE - This procedure should be flown as charted and reduce the amount of aircraft
vectored. FAA Initiative Phase 1, Appendix B notes that 46% of CNDLE departures are on
the procedure; this assumes 54% of aircraft flying the CNDLE departure are vectored. The
Roundtable requests that CNDEL departures be allowed to fly the procedure to PORTE
intersection unless safety (not efficiency) requires vectoring earlier.
4. The Roundtable requests the FAA to use this as a baseline to compare conditions in the
future when reporting back to this body regarding decreasing vector traffic. As with
Adjustment 1.a.ii., the Roundtable requests the FAA research various options as alternate
lateral paths for CNDEL southbound departures.
Utilizing the HUSSH departure procedure during daytime hours should help avoid conflicts with
SSTIK, reduce the need for vectoring, increase separation between these flight paths, and increase
safety. The Roundtable would ultimately prefer a CNDEL procedure that utilizes the entire bay out to
GOBBS, then to WAMMY and then to PORTE. Additional information regarding the SSTIK and the
CNDEL can be found in Attachment B.
Adjustment - 1.b.iii. (Track) – Not Feasible
Description: Analyze moving the ILS/Visual Approach to RWY 28L offshore.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable understands the limitations of an offset to RWY 28L
interfering with operations on RWY 28R. This Adjustment is an example of an operational issue that
can use controller and pilot outreach to help with noise issues; it is understood that the need for side-
by-side operations has increased and with the changes in wake re-categorization, aircraft delays at
SFO are at times cut in half due to this type of operation. As part of the outreach, the Roundtable
requests the following:
a. Work with SFO Noise Abatement Office on a pilot outreach program to encourage aircraft
to stay over water while on approach after receiving their cleared to land instructions.
b. Work with Northern California TRACON (NCT) to increase controller awareness on
keeping aircraft over water as much as possible, especially during late night hours and
when aircraft are operating in single-stream and using RWY 28R. Additionally, we would
like assurances from the FAA, to the maximum extent possible, not turn aircraft over
affected communities prior to nine miles from the SFO VOR (9 DME) final from the
airport, consistent with the NCT informal noise abatement agreement.
c. Determine the feasibility of creating an RNAV (RNP) dual offset approach to Runway 28R
and 28L.
Adjustment - 1.b.iv. (Track) – Not Feasible
Description: Analyze offsetting Visual Approaches until passing San Mateo Bridge.
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 50 of 57
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable understands the limitations of aircraft conducting a stabilized
approach and needing to be set up on a final approach outside of the San Mateo Bridge. This
Adjustment is an example of an operational issue that can use controller and pilot outreach to help
with noise issues.
As part of the outreach, the Roundtable requests the following:
a. Work with SFO Noise Abatement Office on a pilot outreach program to encourage aircraft
to stay over water while on approach after receiving their cleared to land instructions.
b. Work with Northern California TRACON (NCT) to increase controller awareness on
keeping aircraft over water as much as possible, especially during late night hours and
when aircraft are operating in single-stream and using RWY 28R.
Adjustment - 1.b.v. (Track) – Not Feasible
Description: Analyze the impact of non-charted visual approaches to RWY 28.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable understands the limitations of aircraft conducting a stabilized
approach and needing to be set up on a final approach outside of the San Mateo Bridge. This
Adjustment is an example of an operational issue that can use controller and pilot outreach to help
with noise issues.
As part of the outreach, the Roundtable requests the following:
a. Work with SFO Noise Abatement Office on a pilot outreach program to encourage aircraft
to stay over water while on approach after receiving “cleared to land” instructions.
b. Work with NCT to educate controllers on keeping aircraft over water as much as possible,
especially during late night hours and when aircraft are operating in single-stream.
Adjustment - 1.c.ii. (Waypoint) – Feasible
Description: Analyze making adjustments to PORTE departure to maximize offshore routing.
Roundtable Response: The majority of aircraft that depart Runway 01L fly a SSTIK departure
procedure; the comments relating to Adjustment 1.c.ii. are the same the Roundtable comments on
Adjustments 1.a.ii, 1.b.i, and 1.b.ii. with emphasis on the comments for Adjustments 1.a.ii and 1.b.i.
Adjustment - 1.f.ii. (PBN Procedures) – Not Feasible
Description: Evaluate the effect of dispersing flight tracks over a wider range.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable understands that vectoring is often used to compensate for
high flight volumes at SFO and to avoid long delays on the ground. The Roundtable requests to work
with the FAA to determine where aircraft can be vectored with the least noise impact and identify
locations that have the most compatible land uses for vectoring purposes.
Adjustment - 1.f.iii. (PBN Procedures) – Feasible
Description: Study the feasibility of creating new transitions for the NIITE departure for airports to
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 51 of 57
southbound destinations.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable supports FAA’s efforts to create a noise abatement
procedure for nighttime flights that will keep aircraft over compatible land uses, specifically the Bay
and ocean, instead of the peninsula. We request a timeline from the FAA for implementation of this
procedure, factoring in requirements to run the procedure through the FAA Order JO 7100.41A
process.
Additional information regarding a new southbound transition for the NIITE departure can be found in
Attachment B.
Adjustment - 1.f.iv. (PBN Procedures) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the possibility of new SFO RNP approaches which will serve RWYs 28 L/R and
follow the BSR ground track, curved out over the Bay crossing MENLO at 5,000 -6,000 feet.
Roundtable Response: There are two issues in this Adjustment, creating an RNP approach to
Runways 28 L/R and crossing MENLO at 5,000- 6,000 feet. The altitude at MENLO is discussed in
1.a.i.(a). For procedural adjustments, the Roundtable would like Oakland Center and NCT to
encourage use of the RNAV (RNP) Y procedure to Runway 28R or the FMS Visual 28R to keep
aircraft over the water for as long as possible. The Roundtable suggests the following outreach:
a. Work with NCT to educate controllers on keeping aircraft over water as long as possible
on approach, especially during single-stream operations.
b. Work with the SFO ANAO to educate pilots on the ability to request the RNP to Runway
28R or the FMS Visual 28R, given the properly equipped aircraft and flight crew.
Adjustment - 2.a.i. (Sequencing and Vector Points) – Not Feasible
Description: Analyze adjusting air traffic activity in the vicinity of Woodside VOR including altitudes.
Roundtable Response: Aircraft activity over the Woodside VORTAC includes aircraft arrivals from
numerous origin points, not just oceanic arrivals. The Initiative addressed one portion of the flights
which utilize the Ocean Tailored Approach, accounting for less than 4% of SFO’s traffic. The
majority of traffic in this area of southern San Mateo County are 1) vectored flights from southern
arrivals on BIG SUR THREE and SERFR TWO STARs and 2) vectored flights from northern arrivals
on numerous STARs including but not limited to the GOLDEN GATE SEVEN, POINT REYES TWO,
and BDEGA TWO. Aircraft on STARs from northern origin cities fly down the peninsula, turning back
towards the airport over towns and cities in southern San Mateo County over populated terrain that
rises to 2,000’ mean sea level. Aircraft on arrival from southern origin cities are vectored for traffic
over this same geographic area. The Roundtable requests:
a. The FAA determine the ability of more aircraft to utilize the Bay for arrivals from points
north instead of the peninsula. This is especially important during nighttime hours;
nighttime as defined by the CFR Part 150 is 10 pm – 7 am. Between the hours of 10 pm –
7 am, we would like 100% of the arrivals to use the Bay,
b. The BDEGA TWO procedure include the waypoints for a down the Bay procedure, as
done in BDEGA ONE, and
c. The FAA determine altitudes to turn aircraft for vector purposes that minimizes noise.
Additional information regarding the Woodside VOR can be found in Attachment B.
Adjustment - 2.a.ii.(a) (Sequencing and Vector Points) – Feasible
Description: Analyze adjusting air traffic to eliminate early turns over land. Focus on leaving aircraft
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 52 of 57
over water as long as possible.
Roundtable Response: This Adjustment contains references to numerous procedures, which will be
addressed in order.
1. NIITE – when aircraft remain on the NIITE procedure, they represent an excellent use
of an RNAV-based procedure that places aircraft over the intended waypoints, over a
compatible land use (such as the Bay, Pacific Ocean, and non-residential areas), on a
consistent basis. We are encouraged by the use of the NIITE procedure with a goal of
100% use from midnight to 6am and infrequent use during other nighttime hours.
2. HUSSH – the HUSSH is an OAK-based procedure. While these flights do not fly over
San Francisco or the peninsula, we continue to encourage its use and reduce vectors
off of the HUSSH departure for the same reasons as the NIITE.
3. FOGGG – this procedure is used on runways not commonly used, RWY 10L/R and
RWY 19L/R. When weather conditions dictate the use of these runways, we
encourage the use of FOGGG as published and not vector off the procedure.
4. GNNRR – the GNNRR TWO departure is a replacement for the legacy GAP SEVEN
departure, flying runway heading from RWY 28L/R. The Roundtable has been the
voice for San Mateo County for the past 35 years; in that time, aircraft departing out
“the gap” have not been identified as flying a noise abatement procedure. During
nighttime periods, it is not the preferential departure runway due to its overflight of
thousands of residents in multiple communities that vary in elevation. The Roundtable
requests:
a. The FAA remove GNNRR TWO in references to flying aircraft over less noise-
sensitive areas and the associated inclusion in procedures used over less
noise-sensitive areas that total 88%, as noted in this Adjustment, 3rd bullet.
b. When available, use the GAP SEVEN departure to avoid any top altitude
restrictions for aircraft departing Runway 28L/R out the gap.
Adjustment - 2.a.ii.(b) (Sequencing and Vector Points) – Feasible
Description: Analyze adjusting air traffic to eliminate early turns over land. Keep aircraft on the
SSTIK departure until the SSTIK waypoint before turning.
Roundtable Response: This Adjustment contains reference to three procedures; the comments will
address each procedure in order.
1. The SSTIK procedure is a replacement for the legacy PORTE procedure; with the new
procedure came a new waypoint for aircraft to make their initial procedure turn. As with
many cities within San Mateo County, cities underneath the SSTIK waypoint contain
topographic features that can heighten noise from aircraft operations, unlike flying over
flat land. When aircraft are turned before the waypoint, they are turning over the
peninsula while simultaneously continuing their climb, increasing the noise to
communities along its path. Early turns that are cleared to waypoints beyond PORTE add
to the aircraft noise profile along the peninsula.
In keeping with comments regarding SSTIK operations in Adjustment 1.a.ii., 1.b.i., and 1.b.ii, the
SSTIK procedure can be dissected into segments to increase use of compatible land uses (such as
the Bay, Pacific Ocean, and non-residential areas) along the entire route. The goal is to increase the
amount of wings-level flight over the peninsula to reduce the effect of aircraft climbing and turning
over populated areas, letting aircraft gain altitude in a wings level configuration and to minimize their
flight path over populated land before starting a turn to the south over the ocean.
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 53 of 57
The Roundtable requests:
a. Aircraft use compatible land uses (such as the Bay, Pacific Ocean, and non-residential
areas) for as long as possible before turning. For the SSTIK procedure, this would be
using the Bay to gain altitude before turning over populated areas.
b. Define the airspace limitations to the north and east for placement of a waypoint to
replace SSTIK. Present these limitations to the Roundtable in graphic and memo formats.
c. Define the airspace limitations over the Golden Gate and the ocean to the west of the
peninsula for placement of a waypoint to replace or augment PORTE. Present these
limitations to the Roundtable in graphic and memo formats.
2. The Roundtable requests aircraft remain on the WESLA procedure, as charted.
3. While the CNDLE procedure is for OAK departures, the CNDLE and SSTIK share the
PORTE waypoint. Aircraft flying the CNDLE departure overfly numerous areas of the City
of San Francisco and northern San Mateo County. As requested in Adjustment 1.b.ii.,
FAA Initiative Phase 1, Appendix B notes that 46% of CNDLE departures are on the
procedure; this assumes 54% of aircraft flying the CNDLE departure are vectored. The
Roundtable requests the FAA to use this as a baseline to compare improvements in
decreasing vector traffic.
Adjustment - 2.a.ii.(c) (Sequencing and Vector Points) – Feasible
Description: Analyze adjusting air traffic to eliminate early turns over land. Keep aircraft on the NIITE
departure to at least the NIITE waypoint as much as possible.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable comments for Adjustment 2.a.ii.(a) apply to this Adjustment;
we are encouraged by the use of the NIITE procedure.
Adjustment - 2.e.i. (RWY Usage) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the feasibility of increasing the use of RWY 10.
Roundtable Response: RWY 10L/R has historically been the nighttime preferential runway for noise
abatement, especially for wide body aircraft that are travelling to destinations in Asia. This
Adjustment references the increased use of RWY 10L/R in relation to weather conditions. The
Roundtable understands due to weather conditions RWY 10L/R is unable to be used much of the
time, however; the use of RWY 10L/R for portions of nighttime activity will be addressed in
Adjustment 2.e.iii.
The Roundtable requests:
a. When aircraft use the SAHEY THREE departure from Runway 10L/R, that aircraft are not
vectored and fly the procedure as charted. At night when Runway 10L/R is used for noise
abatement, it is critical that aircraft remain on the procedure so that they are not needlessly
vectored at very low altitudes over densely populated areas.
b. The FAA create an RNAV overlay, or create a new procedure, based on the decommissioned
DUMBARTON EIGHT procedure for aircraft departures from Runway 10L/R to keep aircraft
over the Bay.
Additional information regarding the Runway 10 departure and Opposite Direction Operations can be
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 54 of 57
found in the Attachment B.
Adjustment - 2.e.ii. (RWY Usage) – Feasible
Description: Study the feasibility of increasing the use of RWY 01 for departures, study the feasibility
of proceduralizing the 050 departure heading off RWY 01 at night.
Roundtable Response: For daytime operations, RWY 01L/R are the preferential departure runways
while RWY 28L/R are the preferred arrival runways. For nighttime operations, use of RWY 01L/R is
the third preference of SFO’s nighttime preferential runway use program. For departures using RWY
01L/R for departures during nighttime hours, the Roundtable requests aircraft with southern
destinations use the 050 departure heading as much as possible to avoid overflights of the
peninsula. The RT is not advocating for Runway 01L/R to be used more during nighttime hours.
Operationally, the Roundtable would like to use the 050 departure heading, NIITE, and new NIITE
waypoint for south-bound departures to reduce nighttime overflights of the peninsula.
Adjustment - 2.e.iii. (RWY Usage) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the necessity of extending nighttime operations at SFO. According to the SFO
Standard Operating Procedure, the preferred RWY for operations between 0100 and 0600 local time
is departing RWY 10 and landing RWY 28.
Roundtable Response:
Since 1988, SFO has had in place a nighttime preferential runway use program1. The program
defines nighttime hours the same as the FAA FAR Part 150 study as 10 pm – 7 am. During this time
period, SFO defines the following preferred nighttime preferential runway procedures:
1. The primary goal of the program is to use Runways 10 L/R for takeoff because they offer
departure routing over the San Francisco Bay which will reduce the noise impacts over
the communities surrounding SFO.
2. When departures from Runways 10 L/R are not possible, the second preference would
be to depart Runways 28 L/R on the Shoreline or Quiet Departure Procedures. Both of
these procedures incorporate an immediate right turn after departure to avoid residential
communities northwest of SFO. The Quiet DP is now the TRUKN TWO procedure that
flies up the bay.
3. The third preference is to depart on Runways 01 L/R. While this procedure directs aircraft
over the bay, jet blast from these departures affects communities south of SFO.
Over the past 35 years, the Roundtable has worked with the SFO Noise Abatement Office to ensure
the nighttime preferential runway use program stayed in place and is used as much as possible
between 10 pm – 7 am. Due to daytime delays and traffic volumes, the hours that the preferential
runway use program can be used doesn’t always span from 10 pm – 7 am. However, we strive to
have this preferential nighttime runway use program used as much as possible when traffic allows.
The Roundtable requests:
1. Maximum use of SFO’s preferred nighttime preferential runway procedures, including
using the TRUKN (up the Bay) and NIITE as replacements for the SHORELINE and
QUIET departures.
2. Create a RWY 10R procedure for aircraft to depart RWY 10R, then turn up the Bay to join
1 http://www.flysfo.com/community-environment/noise-abatement/noise-abatement-procedures
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 55 of 57
the NIITE. Currently aircraft depart and turn to heading 330 to fly up the Bay via vector
headings issues from NCT. This can be enhanced by creating an RNAV procedure that
brings aircraft up the Bay to join the existing NIITE for destinations to the east or on a
new NIITE waypoint over the Golden Gate Bridge.
Additional information regarding this Response can be found in Attachment B.
Adjustment - 2.e.iv. (RWY Usage) – Not Feasible
Description: When weather conditions permit, study the increase in use of the Shoreline 7 departure
off RWY 28R or 28L.
Roundtable Response: As with previous Adjustments, the Roundtable’s goal is to use compatible
land uses as much as possible. For the SHORELINE SEVEN departure, and now the TRUKN
departure, it is key for aircraft to stay east of Highway 101 for noise abatement. This provides
residents of numerous densely populated cities with relief from aircraft overflights all times of the
day, especially at night. When conditions permit and aircraft use the TRUKN departure off RWY
28L/R, the Roundtable requests the FAA conduct controller outreach to educate them about aircraft
staying east of Highway 101.
Adjustment - 2.f.i. (Instrument Flight Procedures IFP) – Feasible
Description: Study the feasibility of creating new transitions for the NIITE departure for departures to
southbound destinations.
Roundtable Response: See Roundtable response to Adjustment 1.f.iii. and more information in
Attachment B.
Adjustment - 2.f.ii. (Instrument Flight Procedures IFP) – Not Feasible
Description: When weather operations permits, study the use of the Shoreline 7 departure off of
RWY 28R or 28L.
Roundtable Response: See Roundtable response to Adjustment 2.e.iv.
Adjustment - 2.f.iii. (Instrument Flight Procedures IFP) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the use of offset visual approaches in lieu of straight in visual approaches.
Roundtable Response: See Roundtable response to Adjustments 1.b.iii., 1.b.iv., and 1.b.v. and
Attachment B.
Adjustment - 2.f.iv. (Instrument Flight Procedures IFP) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the usage of the GAP departure.
Roundtable Response: Aircraft departing on GNNRR are many times fully-loaded wide-body aircraft
traveling to Europe or Asia. These operations fly over numerous cities that are densely populated.
The Roundtable requests aircraft can climb unrestricted on this procedure. The Roundtable requests
aircraft depart without a top altitude restriction when flying “out the gap” on Runway 28L/R and
consider the use of the GAP 7 departure that has no top altitude restriction instead of the GNNRR
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 56 of 57
departure.
Adjustment - 2.f.vi. (Instrument Flight Procedures IFP) – Not Feasible
Description: Study the feasibility of increasing the use of the SSTIK departure during the day and the
NIITE departure at night.
Roundtable Response: As the Roundtable has requested in previous Adjustments, the SSTIK
procedure should be flown as charted, especially flying to the PORTE waypoint instead of down the
peninsula to points south of PORTE.
Adjustment - 2.g.i. (Opposite Direction Operations ODO) – Not Feasible – Not Applicable
Description: Review recent implementation of ODO procedures and their impacts in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Roundtable Response: See the Roundtable response in Adjustment 2.e.iii.
Adjustment - 2.g.ii. (Opposite Direction Operations ODO) – Not Feasible – Not Applicable
Description: Review recent implementation of ODO procedures and their impacts in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Roundtable Response: The Roundtable supports the FAA’s efforts to use the 050 heading for noise
abatement at night. Please see the Roundtable Response to Adjustments 2.e.i., 2.e.ii., and 2.e.iii.
Adjustment - 3.a.i. (Equitability, Opposite Direction Operations ODO) – Not Feasible – Not
Applicable
Description: Review the current nighttime operations to determine if they adequately address
preferential RWY usage.
Roundtable Response: In addition to the Roundtable’s response and requests in Adjustments 2.e.i.,
2.e.ii., and 2.e.iii relative to runway use at night, the Roundtable requests that SFO’s nighttime
preferential runway use program remain unchanged, with the runway use at nighttime remain as
follows:
1. The primary goal of the program is to use Runways 10 L/R for takeoff because they offer
departure routing over the San Francisco Bay which will reduce the noise impacts over
the communities surrounding SFO, including not vectoring aircraft on the SAHEY THREE
departure.
2. When departures from Runways 10 L/R are not possible, the second preference would
be to depart Runways 28 L/R on the SHORELINE SEVEN, QUIET SEVEN, or TRUKN
TWO Procedures. These procedures incorporate an immediate right turn after departure
to avoid residential communities northwest of SFO.
3. The third preference is to depart on Runways 01 L/R. While this procedure directs aircraft
over the bay, jet blast from these departures affects communities south of SFO.
Additional information regarding Opposite Direction Operations/Nighttime flights can be found in
Attachment B.
Attachment D: SFO Roundtable Response to FAA Initiative Feasibility Report
Response to the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns
November 17, 2016
Page 57 of 57
Adjustment - 3.b.ii. (Interactions and agreements) – Feasible
Description: Review facility agreements to ensure they are effective and efficient with regard to
routing and speeds.
Roundtable Response: In its 35-year history, the Roundtable has maintained working relationships
with its advisory members, including NCT, airlines, and the FAA airports district office. The
Roundtable membership understands how key it is to have representatives from NCT involved with
noise abatement at Roundtable meetings, Noise 101 workshops, and as our host for yearly NCT
visits. We welcome the opportunity to discuss noise abatement with the controllers and as stated in a
previous Adjustment, provide a noise presentation that can be used at NCT during training sessions.
RESOLUTION NO. 6332
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO
PARK REQUESTING ACTION FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION TO REDUCE AIRCRAFT NOISE IN THE CITY OF MENLO PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park desires to maintain a pleasant quality of life for our
residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park will cooperate with all local, State and National
agencies and provide its best efforts toward minimizing aircraft noise; and
WHEREAS, the City participates in the San Francisco Airport/Community Roundtable
(SFO Roundtable) in an effort to reduce the impacts of commercial flights over the city
of Menlo Park; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Representatives Anna Eshoo, San Farr and Jackie Speier have
formed a Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals to develop regional solutions to
address aircraft noise; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to have its position on aircraft noise articulated to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Select Committee and the SFO
Roundtable.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Menlo Park City Council as follows:
1. Menlo Park residents have been negatively affected by increased aircraft noise
caused by the implementation of the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation
system (NextGen) in 2015.
2. The City Council supports regional cooperation in addressing aircraft noise, and
supports the efforts of the Select Committee and the SFO Roundtable to seek out
and implement these solutions.
3. The City Council requests that the FAA reduce the arrivals into San Francisco
International (SFO) using the BDEGA or Point Reyes West route over the
Peninsula and instead utilize the BDEGA East route over the San Francisco Bay.
4. If the BDEGA/Point Reyes West route must be utilized, that airplanes be required to
fly at a higher altitude over the mid-Peninsula before beginning their U-turn over
Palo Alto.
5. The FAA previously agreed with Representative Eshoo in 2000 that the minimum
altitude over the MENLO waypoint be 5,000 feet under visual flight rules (VFR).
Under NextGen, the altitude over the MENLO waypoint is 4,000 feet regardless of
weather conditions in order to adhere to an Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) of
2.85 degrees. The average altitude over the MENLO waypoint has therefore
decreased from 4,928 feet during September 2010 to 4,452 feet in September
2015.
6. The City Council requests that the FAA increase the minimum altitude over the
MENLO waypoint during visual flight conditions, as previously agreed with
Representative Eshoo.
7. Several SFO arrival routes converge over the MENLO waypoint resulting in a
steady increase from approximately 3,900 airplanes in September 2010 to nearly
5,000 in September 2015.
8. The City Council requests that the FAA disperse arrivals by utilizing other waypoints
in addition to MENLO, preferably over the San Francisco Bay.
9. The City is vehemently opposed to any modifications to routes that would have the
effect of concentrating additional flights over Menlo Park. In particular, any
modification of routes which add additional aircraft to a route that approaches the
MENLO waypoint would have a substantial noise impact on Menlo Park.
10. After the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals completes its work, the FAA must
put in place a continuous mechanism for gaining feedback from mid-Peninsula
communities affected or potentially affected by changes in aircraft routes and
procedures.
I, Pamela Aguilar, City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above
and foregoing City Council resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a
meeting of said City Council on the nineteenth day of July, 2016, by the following votes:
AYES: Carlton, Keith, Mueller, Ohtaki
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cline
ABSTAIN: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
said City on this nineteenth day of July, 2016.
Pamela Aguilar, CMC
City Clerk
November 17, 2016
The Honorable Anna Eshoo
United States House of Representatives
698 Emerson St., Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Honorable Sam Farr
United States House of Representatives
701 Ocean St, Room 318C, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The Honorable Jackie Speier
United States House of Representatives
155 Bovet Road, Suite 780, San Mateo, CA 94402
City of Brisbane
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005-1310
(415) 508-2110
Fax(415)4674989
www .brisbaneca.org
Re: FAA Initiative, City of Brisbane's support for the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable Response
Dear Members Eshoo, Farr, and Speier:
As the Mayor of the City of Brisbane, I want to thank you for caring about the health and welfare
of my constituents as it relates to airplane overflight in our community. Through your sincere
and diligent efforts, you were able to get the public a seat at the table with the FAA to seriously
address noise and health impacts resulting from flights out of SFO and OAK. Through the FAA
Initiative process, our communities were provided a platform to address our concerns,
understand the issues and put forth real solutions that seek to find coexistence with our
surrounding airports.
Airplanes flying over our community not only diminish our ability to live a peaceful existence,
but also negatively impact the health of our citizens. Quality of life is severely compromised
when people are constantly being awakened in the middle of the night, children struggle to
concentrate at school, every morning is greeted by a constant barrage of noisy flights seven days
a week.
We strongly support the efforts of our Congressional Representatives, the SFO Roundtable, and
the FAA to collaboratively work together to find solutions that reduce negative noise impacts
caused by airplanes, while also maintaining safety in our skies.
We strongly support the following recommendations that have been made in the SFO
Roundtable Response Document:
At night, fly the 050 Operation as often as possible.
Create a southbound destination for the NIITE procedure.
Fly the CNDEL procedure to the CNDEL waypoint, then preferably fly out the Golden
Gate and down the coast. This would be an excellent solution to reduce noise impacts
because planes would fly over the water, rather than over people's homes.
Short term SSTIK, fly planes over the Bay (at least to SEPDY) for as long as possible to
achieve higher altitudes before turning planes in a relatively wide dispersal path as they
make their way to the ocean.
Long term SSTIK, move the waypoint as far north and east from SEPDY as possible,
then preferably fly out the Golden Gate and down the coast. This would be an excellent
solution to reduce noise impacts because planes would fly over the water, rather than
over people's homes.
We understand that we live near an airport, and that Brisbane should expect to receive some
level of airplane noise. However, the number of planes that fly through our City is excessive and
unfair. The busiest route in the country is SFO to LAX, which predominately passes through our
City as the planes are at full thrust, gaining altitude. We recently learned that SFO is now at
historic levels of flight volume, with more to c01ne: our residents cannot be the collateral
damage of insensitive growth at SFO. Using the Bay and Pacific Ocean to route airplanes to
Southern CA destinations is a respectful way for SFO to grow, while drastically reducing noise
and the fuel pollution that rains down on Brisbane.
The suggestions put forth in the SFO Roundtable Response document provide balanced
perspectives, efficient use of non-residential areas, and a spirit of mutual collaboration to create
solutions that achieve significant objectives for everyone.
Our Community will be by your side as you work with the FAA to embrace the solutions in the
SFO Roundtable Response Document, and guide them to be sincere partners in reducing
negative impacts from airplanes.
Since.rely, / / Y/' , / / / ��/�·_,/ � I
L � JZJ CliffLehtz
Mayor of Brisbane
cc:
Glen Martin, Regional Administrator
Clark Desing, Director, Western Service Center
Ron Fincher, Director, Air Traffic Operations Western Service Area South
Tony DiBernardo, Terminal District Manager, Sierra Pacific District Air Traffic Operations
Don Kirby, Manager, NORCAL TRACON
Tracey Johnson, Manager, Quality Control Group, Mission Services
Mindy Wright, Manager, South Airspace & Procedures Team
Members, SFO Airport/Community Roundtable
Members, Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals
Memorandum
TO: City of Palo Alto
FROM: Steve Palmer and Channon Hanna, Van Scoyoc Associates
RE: Update on Status of FAA Authorization Bill and Airport Noise
DATE: May 15, 2017
The current authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expires on September 30,
2017. This brief memo is an attempt to provide an update on the status of the House and Senate efforts
to pass a new bill FAA bill this year.
House of Representatives. The House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee has held five
hearings this year in preparation for FAA Authorization. The central issue for T&I Committee Chairman
Bill Shuster (R-PA) is his proposal to move air traffic control out of the FAA and to a private, non-profit
corporation funded by user fees. The starting point is the bill that the T&I Committee approved last year
(HR 4441), but advanced no further. Last year, Chairman Shuster was not able to get all the Committee
Republicans to support his air traffic control proposal and more importantly, Ways and Means
Committee and Appropriations Committee Members on both sides of the aisle have serious concerns
about giving up their legislative authority over the FAA. Now that the Trump Administration is
supporting the idea of privatizing the nation’s air traffic control system, it is possible that there could be
greater support for Chairman Shuster’s efforts. We do not expect to see a House version of the FAA bill
until June, at the earliest.
Senate. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the
FAA, has held two hearings this year, one on airport infrastructure and one on general aviation issue. In
our meetings with the Committee staff, we have been told that this year’s Senate bill will be based on
last year’s Senate-passed bill, which had strong bipartisan support. The Committee’s senior Democrat
Bill Nelson (D-FL) has been clear that he will oppose air traffic control privatization at every turn, and
several Republican Senators have expressed their concerns with that proposal. Committee Chairman
John Thune (R-SD) announced this week that he expects the Committee to vote on an FAA Authorization
bill, which will not privatize the air traffic control system, in June and the bill could be considered by the
full Senate in July.
Overall, it is doubtful given all that Congress must do before September 30th, which is when the current
funding authority for the FAA will expire, that we will see a final bill by then. At this point, we would
expect another extension at least to December of this year.
Polis Airport Access Bill. Based on our experience of working on various FAA bills for a number of years,
it seems extremely unlikely that Committee leaders would support any bill that would limit aircraft
access to any public airport. Non-commercial aviation, which includes private aircraft operators and
business jets, all aggressively oppose restrictions of any kind on airport access. Representative Polis (D-
CO) is not on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, so for this provision to be added to the
bill, it would require an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives. Securing a majority of
votes for this provision to be added to the FAA bill would be very difficult.
Federal Aviation Administration
DYAMD
SERFR
BDEGA
Arrivals into SFO
Key:
BDEGA June 2016
DYAMD June 2016
SERFR June 2016
Oceanic June 2016
DYAMD: 40% SFO Arrivals
Oceanic: 5% SFO Arrivals
SERFR: 30% SFO Arrivals
BDEGA: 25% SFO Arrivals
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO (CA -18)
For Immediate Release
May 17, 2017
http://eshoo.house.gov
Contact: Emma Crisci
(202) 225-8104
emma.crisci@mail.house.gov
ESHOO, SPEIER, PANETTA STATEMENT: UPDATE ON FAA
RESPONSE REGARDING AIRCRAFT NOISE
WASHINGTON, D.C— Today, Representatives Anna Eshoo (CA-18), Jackie Speier (CA-14)
and Jimmy Panetta (CA-20) released the following update on the Federal Aviation
Administration’s response to address the issue of noise from air traffic in their Congressional
Districts.
“In early December 2016, the final reports with recommendations of the Select Committee on
South Bay Arrivals and the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable were
sent to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review and action.
“Our offices have been engaged with the new Western-Pacific Regional Administrator of the
FAA and his team since early this year, and we have continued to relay the public’s interest in a
response to the recommendations as soon as possible. Each of us has spoken directly with FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta regarding the status of the FAA’s response to the 109
recommendations contained in these reports to address the ongoing issue of aircraft noise in our
Congressional Districts.
“Administrator Huerta confirmed he has received a draft response from his Western-Pacific team
who have completed extensive technical work and his team in Washington D.C. is conducting a
final review of the document at this time. Administrator Huerta told us that the FAA is
committed to this Initiative process and continuing to work on the response to the
recommendations.
“We have been advised that the FAA will send their completed document to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) within a month for final review and authorization. It is not known at this
time how long the DOT will take to authorize the release of the response; we will continue to
follow-up and will release the response as soon as we receive it.”
###
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7735)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Expansion Plan for Fiber Optic Network and Wireless
Network
Title: Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the
Policy and Services Committee Make a Recommendation that Council
Recommend: (1) Option 2 for the Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network
(FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi -Fi to Unserved
City Facilities and Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided Wi-Fi in
Commercial Areas
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
Recommendation
Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the Policy and Services Committee Make
a Recommendation that Council Recommend: (1) Option 2 for the Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network
(FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities and
Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas
OPTION 1. Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP). Explore potential funding models,
such as general obligation bonds requiring a ballot measure with two-thirds voter
approval, or revenue bonds secured by ongoing dark fiber license revenues and fiber
reserves, to build and maintain a ubiquitous, municipally-owned Fiber-to-the-Premises
network; or
OPTION 2. Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) Network with Neighborhood/Private
Last Mile Provision. Develop a business case for a Fiber-to-the-Node network, which
may be a platform for Public Safety and Utilities wireless communication in the field,
Smart Grid and Smart City applications, and new dark fiber licensing opportunities;
engage an engineering consultant to design a citywide FTTP network; identify potential
partners and/or service providers, and identify last mile funding models; or
OPTION 3. Pause Municipal FTTP Development Efforts; Increase Transparency and Predictability
for Third Party Providers. Direct staff to identify additional resources and opportunities
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to assist Internet service providers committed to deploying gigabit-speed broadband
service; in addition, pause internal efforts to pursue municipal FTTP as the
telecommunications industry and associated technologies rapidly evolve.
Staff’s subsequent exploration would include a more specific analysis of the costs, business justifications
and needs, as well as the legal and practical feasibility of the selected option.
Staff also requests that the Policy and Services Committee recommend that the City Council approve the
following two recommendations for wireless expansion:
Expand the City’s OverAir Wi-Fi Hotspots to unserved City facilities and request that Council
approve an estimated $165,100 for one-time equipment and installation costs funded by the
Fiber-Optic Fund and allocation of monthly recurring charges of approximately $6,239 to the
General Fund; and
Discontinue consideration of building a City-provided public Wi-Fi network in high traffic
commercial areas.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Executive Summary
Fiber Utility
Given the increasingly competitive telecommunications landscape, including new hybrid fiber/wireless
technologies and emerging services and applications requiring access to networks capable of gigabit-
speeds and beyond, staff recommends pursuing one of three identified incremental approaches to fiber-
optic expansion. Staff is requesting feedback, direction and a recommendation for approval by Council
to direct staff work concerning the fiber utility for the next twenty-four (24) months to best facilitate
citywide access to gigabit-speed broadband services. Staff requests that the Policy and Services
Committee select one of the three options proposed above for approval by Council.
Option #1 (Municipally-Owned FTTP) proposes exploration of different funding models to raise
the $50 million to $78 million staff estimates is necessary to build a municipally-owned FTTP
network.
Option #2 (Municipally-Owned FTTN, with Neighborhood/Private Last Mile Provision) proposes
development of a business case with consideration of a number of approaches, including
preparation of a FTTP and FTTN design, identification of potential “last mile” service providers,
and evaluation of potential funding models to build from the neighborhood node to the
customer premise.1 The estimated build-out cost of a FTTN network is between $12 million and
$15 million.
Option #3 (Pause Municipal FTTP Efforts; Increase Transparency and Predictability for Third
Party Providers) proposes to identify resources and opportunities to better support third-party
network upgrades and pause internal efforts for municipal FTTP.
In April 2017, the Utilities Advisory Commission (“UAC”) recommended option #2 (Municipally-Owned
FTTN, with Neighborhood/Private Last Mile Provision) with the conditions that a business case be
developed establishing the benefits to the City and quantify the return on investment. Staff should also
identify potential last mile service provider models. Staff agrees with UAC’s conditions and has included
them in the option #2 proposal.
Wireless Deployment
With respect to wireless deployment, staff recommends expanding the City’s existing Wi-Fi service to
unserved City facilities such as the Cubberley Community Center, Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, Lucie
Stern Community Center and Lytton Plaza. However, staff does not recommend pursuing deployment of
City-provided public Wi-Fi connectivity in high traffic commercial areas such as University Avenue and
California Avenue.
The UAC approved the recommendation to expand City W-Fi coverage at common areas in Cubberley,
Lucie Stern, and Lytton Plaza, but not at the Golf Course Pro Shop and Café. The UAC also approved
discontinuing efforts to build a City-provided public Wi-Fi network in high traffic commercial areas. Staff
1 FTTN is one of several options for providing fiber cable telecommunications services to multiple neighborhood access points.
FTTN helps to provide broadband connections and other data services through a common network box, which is often called a
node. The node provides a neighborhood access point to build out the so-called “last mile” to deliver services to the customer
premise. The last mile is typically the most expensive portion to build in a FTTP network. Fiber-to the-Node is also called “Fiber-
to-the-Neighborhood.”
City of Palo Alto Page 4
agrees with UAC’s recommendation but suggests including the Golf Course Pro Shop and Café consistent
with services provided in other City facilities.
Background
The dark fiber optic backbone network (“fiber network”) was originally conceived by the City in the mid-
1990s and is maintained and operated by City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”). Exhibit A – Fiber History
and Initiatives provides a comprehensive history of various efforts to expand the network from 1996 to
the present. The most recent activities under the Council’s “Technology and the Connected City”
initiative involved the preparation of a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan (“FTTP Master Plan”) and a
Wireless Network Plan, in addition to working with Google Fiber for more than two years on a potential
citywide FTTP network build. The FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan were prepared by the
City’s consultant, CTC Technology & Energy (“CTC”). Staff has also worked closely with a Citizen
Advisory Committee (“CAC”) since 2014 on various fiber and wireless issues. The CAC was recently
expanded from six to eleven members. The committee meets approximately every two months and has
provided valuable feedback and guidance to City staff.
Since the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan were completed and reviewed by the Council in
September 2015, staff has worked to complete the various tasks in the Council’s September 28, 2015
(staff report #6104) and November 30, 2015 (staff report #6301) motions. The status of the Council
motion items can be found in Exhibit B – Council Motion Status. In the past year, the competitive
landscape in the industry has changed dramatically throughout the country, including Palo Alto. The
most significant change affecting Palo Alto occurred in July 2016, when Google Fiber advised staff that it
was “pausing” its plans to build a fiber-optic network in Silicon Valley and other cities where
construction had not yet started. Other significant changes include upgrades to existing wired and
wireless networks by AT&T Fiber, Comcast, AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless.
At the November 2, 2016 UAC meeting, staff reviewed several elements of the above-noted
recommendations and provided other information related to network and service improvements by
AT&T Fiber, Comcast and the wireless carriers, in addition to the status of Google Fiber. Information
was also provided about the responses to the Request for Information (“RFI”) for a partnership for
deployment of a citywide FTTP network issued in May 2016. Staff reported that none of the responses
to the RFI completely aligned with the City’s objective for a public-private partnership. Commissioners
provided feedback and suggestions which includes incentivizing the incumbents to accelerate their
network upgrades while providing ubiquitous coverage and identifying the public benefits of a
municipally-owned fiber network. (Exhibit C – Excerpted Final UAC Minutes of November 2, 2016).
At the November UAC meeting, City Manager James Keene observed that an incremental Fiber-to-the-
Node (“FTTN”) approach has potential because of the need to reinvest in the fiber network and the cost
is manageable. The fiber ring could be expanded in a way to stay competitive. For example, the fiber
network was extended to the school district and there may be other opportunistic expansions. Also,
since staff does not exactly know now where the technology is headed for fiber and wireless
deployments, FTTN may be back-filler for fiber backhaul opportunities to support ubiquity and possibly
facilitate future 5G services.2
2 5th generation mobile networks or 5th generation wireless systems, abbreviated 5G, are the proposed next
telecommunications standards beyond the current 4G/IMT-Advanced standards.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
On December 12, 2016, staff provided Council with an informational update regarding fiber and wireless
activities (Staff report #6221):
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55016
Discussion
FIBER UTILITY
In light of the rapidly evolving telecommunications marketplace, staff has attempted to pursue and keep
all options open in a preliminary manner. Nonetheless, this staff report is designed to allow the Policy
and Services Committee to recommend that Council select one of the three options to direct staff to
focus on a single effort over the next 24 months. The following provides additional information about
the three options and the recommendations for wireless deployment.
Option 1: Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP).
The 2015 FTTP Master Plan indicated that the City will require an estimated overall capital investment of
approximately $78 million one-time cost to build and approximately $8 million annually to operate and
maintain the network. The estimated network construction and operating costs are subject to change
based on real-world variables.
Certain challenges inherent to FTTP deployment are especially pronounced in the Palo Alto. The City’s
primary challenge in its pursuit of an FTTP buildout is that its costs will be high compared to other
metropolitan areas for labor and materials. The cost of outside plant (“OSP”)3 and drop cables4 will be
greater than in other metropolitan areas because Bay Area costs tend to be higher. Additionally, many
of the easements where the City must build are privately owned, which may require every drop cable to
be placed in conduit. Additionally, many back yard poles in private easements will need to be replaced,
because they’re too short for new fiber-optic attachments.
The high construction and labor costs result in a higher necessary take rate for the City’s FTTP enterprise
to obtain and maintain positive cash flow. Based on the financial projections (and the underlying
assumptions), a 72 percent take rate is required to financially sustain the network. This is not only much
higher than overbuilders5 have been able to achieve in other communities, but also higher than the
required take rates for other potential municipal fiber enterprises. As a comparison, other recent
analyses performed by CTC for municipalities have shown a required take rate in the mid-40 percent
range in order to maintain positive cash flow.
In the FTTP Master Plan, CTC provided an analysis of potential funding models. A key consideration for
network implementation is how to fund both capital construction costs and ongoing operational
expenses. The importance of factoring in the ongoing cost of operations cannot be overstated; these
expenses fluctuate based on the success of the enterprise, and can vary considerably each year, and
even month to month. The capital and operating costs associated with a full-scale communitywide build-
out will be significant, and the City will have to seek a combination of outside funding, internal subsidies,
3 OSP is physical assets like overhead and underground fiber, accompanying ducts and splice cases, and other network
components
4 Drop cables connect the fiber optic backbone to the customer premises.
5 An “overbuilder” is a private entity or a government entity that builds a new network in the public rights-of-way that will
operate and compete with existing networks already built by the cable TV and telecom incumbents.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
and/or other financing alternatives such as user-financing, creating Assessment Districts or finding a
private sector partner to provide additional funding to support construction and the FTTP network’s
startup costs. Each of these potential funding mechanisms would require a more detailed legal and
practical feasibility analysis, should the Policy and Services Committee and Council elect to pursue this
option. It’s important to note, however, that some private entities involved in financing and building
municipal broadband networks may require an ownership stake to secure loans from the private lending
markets.
Examples of potential financing models are bond issuances, City subsidies and loans, user-financing and
Assessment Districts. Municipalities typically rely on General Obligation Bond and Revenue Bond
issuances for capital projects; therefore, the City may be able to issue a bond (i.e., borrow funds) to
enable construction of an FTTP network.
General Obligation (“GO”) bonds are directly tied to the City’s credit rating and ability to tax its citizens.
This type of bond is not related to any direct revenues from specific projects, but is connected instead to
citywide taxes and revenues that can be used to repay this debt. GO bonds can be politically challenging,
because it requires approval by two-thirds of the voters. Because GO bonds can only be used for
physical improvements and not for services, they are generally issued for projects such as libraries,
museums, community centers, schools, public parks, roadways and other infrastructure improvements.
Revenue bonds are directly tied to a specific revenue source to secure the bond and guarantee
repayment of the debt. As of June 30, 2016, the Fiber Optic Fund has accumulated approximately $25
million dollars in reserves. The Fiber Optic Fund currently generates a positive net income between $2.5
million to $3.0 million annually depending on the level of capital improvement activity.
In addition to funding the construction cost, it is also possible that ongoing internal subsidies from other
City funds will be necessary to support regular operations if customer take rates are not sufficient.
Examples of these operational costs include network equipment license fees, ongoing hardware and
software replenishments, labor-intensive customer support, customer acquisition costs, and network
maintenance.
Option 2: Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) Network with Neighborhood/Private Last Mile
Provision.
To evaluate a potential incremental step for citywide FTTP, staff worked with CTC to develop a
preliminary, high-level analysis of the cost to build a FTTN network.6 A FTTN network would require
construction of approximately 62 miles of fiber plant, compared to 230 miles for a citywide FTTP
network deployment. The FTTN network would provide an access point to connect neighborhood-area
backhaul communications links.7 Building a FTTN network would be an incremental approach for fiber
expansion and may lower the barriers for potential FTTP providers to build the “last mile” from
neighborhood access nodes to individual premises. FTTN would provide the City with a phased and
economically viable deployment approach to push fiber closer to residential neighborhoods and create a
6 CTC advises that there are variations of the concept of building some subset of the physical plant to entice private
investment. For example, Lincoln, NE used 300 miles of conduit to attract an FTTP provider. Holly Springs, NC built
a middle-mile fiber network to serve their own town sites, but designed it specifically with capacity and other
attributes intended to make it attractive as a backbone for FTTP. This attracted Ting Internet, who is leasing large
quantities of fiber strands (144-count) throughout Holly Spring’s approximately 20-mile backbone.
7 Backhaul communications fiber links are required to transmit data back to a network backbone or central office.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
potential “jumping off point” to bring fiber to individual premises (i.e. building the “last mile”). Ancillary
benefits would also occur by expanding the functionality and the choices of technology that can be
implemented for Utilities and Public Safety and to support Smart City, Smart Grid and wireless
applications dependent on fiber-optic communication links. Additional opportunities to license dark
fiber for commercial purposes may also develop.
If fiber was expanded to residential neighborhoods, it would be available to the wireless carriers who
need to build small cell sites in not just commercial areas, but also in residential areas to improve
coverage and capacity for their networks. This is known as “network densification.” These small cell
sites, located primarily on utility and streetlight poles in the public rights-of-way, will need to be
connected to fiber to “backhaul” traffic to a central point in a wireless carrier’s network. The carriers can
build this fiber themselves, but if City fiber is available it could be licensed to the carriers at a more
expedient and cost-effective manner. According to RCR Wireless News, fiber is expected to be a
significant focus on planned 5G network deployments. Similar to 3G and 4G before it, 5G is the “next
generation” of wireless connectivity built specifically to keep up with the proliferation of devices that
need a mobile Internet connection, connecting not just a smartphone and computer, but home
appliances, door locks, security cameras, cars, wearables, and many other inert devices beginning to
connect to the web. This is commonly known as the “Internet of Things” (“IoT”). In effect, these dark
fiber licensing opportunities for the wireless carriers and builders of shared wireless infrastructure may
facilitate a new opportunity to increase revenues under the existing business model. Additionally, this
expansion could also create a communications platform for Smart City and Smart Grid applications,
especially for communication with utility meters, streetlights, parking, traffic and City news.
The following is a high-level breakdown of the FTTN cost components and total estimated network costs
provided by CTC:
Cost Components Total Estimated Costs
Outside Plant (OSP Engineering) $1,110,000
Quality Control/Quality Assurance 290,000
General OSP Construction Cost 7,110,000
Special Crossings 150,000
Backbone & Distribution Plant Splicing 310,000
Backbone Hub, Termination & Testing 2,410,000
Drop Connections (Tap to WAP) 45,000
Total Estimated Cost
*This estimate does not include any of the network electronics,
wireless or otherwise
$11,425,000
City of Palo Alto Page 8
The $11.4 million estimate is within the capacity of the existing $25 million Fiber Fund reserves. At this
time, staff does not know the ongoing costs to operate and maintain a FTTN network since its
contingent on the use(s) of the network.
With regard to business case development, a number of approaches could be considered and staff
requests Policy & Services Committee feedback on next steps. Preliminarily, staff would recommend
proceeding with the following steps if Council directs proceeding with Option 2:
1. Staff will engage an engineering consultant to initiate a preliminary design for FTTP and FTTN.
Any such design will need to make certain assumptions driven by business case model(s), public-
private partnership opportunities, and technologies for last mile service delivery. The
components of developing a FTTP network design includes identifying the type of services which
will be carried over the network and cost estimates for the geographic layout of fiber routes and
outside plant, nodes and transmission equipment required. Upon completion of the design and
confirmation of the business model, the consultant scope of services will be structured to
enable full citywide FTTP design, but with the expectation that authorization to proceed will
occur in phases, based on cost estimation, community interest, and/or partnership agreements
before incremental last mile deployment.
2. Utilities staff will develop a public outreach program to solicit neighborhood interest in
participating in verifying the business case for FTTP. Residents will be advised that as
envisioned, the City would fund extension of the fiber network to the neighborhood with the
understanding that residents may be responsible for some or all of the costs to reach individual
homes. An up-front cost estimate per home would be communicated (e.g. estimated range of
$800-$5,000 per home for wired service or undetermined costs at this time for wireless service),
with cost estimates to be refined as the evaluation proceeds. Residents will also be advised that
decisions have not been made regarding service provider(s). Depending on the level of interest
expressed, a handful of neighborhoods may be selected to proceed with preliminary network
design.
3. IT staff will explore marketplace interest in (a) participating in the last mile buildout and (b)
providing gigabit service to neighborhood residents. Participation in (a) and (b) could be
described as integrated or separable levels of involvement.
4. Subject to positive responses to the steps above, staff would engage stakeholders in identifying
priority characteristics of prospective service provider(s). Topics would likely include
characteristics such as services to be provided, customer service expectations, and policies on
issues such as data privacy.
Staff would report to the Utilities Advisory Commission and Policy & Services Committee on the results
and conclusions from these steps, ultimately leading to Council action prior to proceeding with
construction of the FTTN network.
Under Option 2, staff would likely issue competitive solicitation(s) for a FTTN design and concurrently
evaluate other last mile funding models to pay for the connections between neighborhood nodes and
homes and businesses. If a certain level of interest is met and property owners are willing to pay for the
City of Palo Alto Page 9
connections, fiber and/or wireless technologies could be deployed to deliver faster broadband services.
Potential funding models for the “Last Mile” include:
User-Financing. User-financing which relies on homeowners to pay on a voluntary basis for
some or all of the cost to build-out the City’s existing dark fiber backbone network into
residential neighborhoods. Homeowners would voluntarily finance system build-out costs by
paying a one-time upfront connection fee that could range from $800 to $5,000, or more. The
City would provide a wholesale transport-only service to one or more ISP on an “open access”
basis and the homeowner would directly pay the ISP for Internet connectivity. The City would be
responsible for building and maintaining the core network while leaving customer service,
provisioning, technical support and billing to the ISP. Property owners could self-organize, or a
third party could potentially facilitate neighborhood participation, or the City could facilitate the
formation of Community Facilities Districts or Assessment Districts.
Assessment Districts; Mello-Roos/Community Facilities Districts (CFDs). City staff could also
explore using Assessment Districts or CFDs to fund Last Mile development. Depending on the
Policy and Services Committee and Council interest, using this approach for fiber buildout would
be novel and would require more study to determine whether such districts could be structured
in such a way that would be both practically and administratively feasible and also adhere to all
applicable legal requirements, including statutory requirements for establishing assessment
districts in a charter city and constitutional requirements such as Proposition 218.
Assessment Districts may be used to finance new public improvements or other additions to the
community. Generally speaking, an Assessment District is formed with property owner mail
ballot proceedings involving each property that will be assessed in the district. Owners vote yes
or no, and votes are weighted by the assessed amount. In order for an assessment to be levied,
no votes may not exceed yes votes. Assessment districts are still subject to Proposition 218,
which requires identification of special rather than general benefit.
Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Gov. Code §§ 53311, et seq.), cities and
other local government agencies can form a community facilities district to finance certain
facilities and services. These districts can levy a special tax, and issue bonds secured by that tax,
upon approval by two-thirds of the registered voters or property owners within the district.
Public-Private Partnership for Last Mile Expansion. Explore the potential for a public-private
partnership, where the City and a private entity work together to achieve mutual goals for an
FTTP network. In light of the high cost to build and the extremely high required take rate, it may
seem that there is little incentive for any provider (public or private) to pursue an FTTP
deployment in Palo Alto. A private entity and a public entity could complement one another by
developing a partnership that can take advantage of each entity’s strengths, which may
significantly reduce cost and risk. While this model is newly emerging, engaging a private
partner may enable the City to take advantage of opportunities to mitigate risk and maximize
opportunity. The public and private sectors each have unique advantages and disadvantages
that may impact their ability to undertake a standalone overbuild. A private entity and a public
entity could complement one another by developing a partnership that can take advantage of
each entity’s strengths, and may significantly reduce cost and risk.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Option 3. Pause Municipal FTTP Development Efforts; Increase Transparency and Predictability for
Third Party Providers.
In light of the aggressive upgrade plans by the incumbents and the development of emerging
technologies such as gigabit-speed fixed wireless and 5G that will significantly enhance the delivery of
consumer and business broadband services, another potential option is pausing any further municipal
FTTP development efforts at this time. Obtaining viable market share and acquiring new customers is
necessary to financially sustain a City FTTP offering.
A new City FTTP network would compete directly with existing local incumbent cable, telco, and other
Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer services to customers. Generally, fiber overbuilds do not offer a
high rate of return, which is why there are not many private sector providers seeking to build fiber
networks in markets where customers are already served. The likelihood that a municipally-owned FTTP
network could be financially viable is doubtful, unless the City was willing to subsidize the network
indefinitely, or if one of the aforementioned funding approaches was feasible, or if a partner from the
private sector was willing to assume a portion of the financial risk. The ability of the City to acquire more
than 70 percent market share on its own is highly unlikely, thus the financial risk would be very high. In
the FTTP Master Plan a market assessment report was provided in an appendix. This market assessment
provides an overview of providers that currently offer services with which the City’s potential new fiber-
to-the-premises (FTTP) enterprise might compete (Exhibit D – Palo Alto Existing Market Assessment).
The City’s existing dark fiber enterprise is viable, because it is a niche service with little or no
competition. Nonetheless, success in providing commercial dark fiber does not translate into a feasible
business case for the City to enter a very competitive industry.
In the interest of improving broadband in Palo Alto and based on the concerns noted above, another
approach is to identify resources and improve coordination of City policies and processes to facilitate
network upgrades by third-parties such as AT&T, Comcast and other wired and wireless ISPs. This will
enhance transparency and predictability for third party providers. Municipal strategies that advance
broadband deployment can be grouped into three general categories: (1) ways to facilitate access to key
assets such as fiber, conduit, utility poles, and real estate; (2) ways to make useful information available
to potential broadband service providers; and (3) ways to streamline and publicize local processes.
Access by third-parties to infrastructure data and assets such as poles, conduits and rights-of-ways is
essential to encouraging broadband improvements. Ensuring efficient and predictable processes that
enhance deployments is equally important, as with any public project. According to a study published by
CTC in 2014,8 local governments balance the needs of broadband providers with the public cost of the
processes necessary to support them and with other priorities that clamor for the same resources. To
balance these competing interests, local processes such as permitting and inspection can be formalized
and publicized. Timelines can be determined based on local needs, publicized, and then met.
Transparency about processes and timelines enables broadband companies to expeditiously plan and
deploy networks, enabling localities to manage the costs and burdens of the processes necessary to
meet broadband providers’ needs.
8 GIGABIT COMMUNITIES - Technical Strategies for Facilitating Public or Private Broadband Construction in
Your Community
http://www.ctcnet.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GigabitCommunities.pdf
City of Palo Alto Page 11
The City and broadband providers can cooperatively plan before construction so as to understand
respective schedules and needs, and so that the provider can plan to stage its work around known and
predictable local processes. In order to implement these strategies, staff will need to identify additional
internal and/or external resources to better facilitate planning approvals, environmental reviews,
permitting, inspections and legal reviews. The work to identify resources was well underway when staff
was working with Google Fiber to manage the anticipated large volume of activities to build a fiber-optic
network in Palo Alto.
The City Attorney’s office, Development Center, Public Works, Planning & Community Environment and
Utilities reviewed multiple City policies, practices and procedures to accommodate these activities. The
Google Fiber City Checklist process, which required all of the above-mentioned departments to work in
concert to identify information about existing infrastructure (e.g. utility poles and available conduit),
review various policies and procedures to facilitate access to the public rights-of-way and utility poles, in
addition to reviewing infrastructure data such as utility routes to make construction speedy and
predictable. An example of this staff review is the “pole intent process” required to manage hundreds
of applications to attach fiber-optic cables and other equipment to utility poles jointly-owned by the City
and AT&T. Another example was the review of construction methods and various construction
constraints to ensure the integrity of the public rights-of-ways and street conditions that would be
significantly impacted by large scale excavations and directional boring required to lay new conduit and
fiber-optic cables in the public rights-of-way, in addition to placing thousands of below-grade vaults
citywide.
The following includes information about current and upcoming third-party upgrades:
AT&T Fiber (formerly GigaPower) plans to upgrade their network in 2017-2018 in order to
provide gigabit-speed broadband services to the community. AT&T plans to select
neighborhoods with high potential for adoption and will use consumer demand levels to
determine further deployments in the city.
Comcast plans a soft launch of DOCSIS 3.1 technology in the second quarter of 2017 to offer
multi-gigabit service to its residential customers. Data over Cable Service Interface Specification
(“DOCSIS”) is an international telecommunications standard that permits the addition of high-
bandwidth data transfer to an existing cable TV system. DOCSIS technology is employed by
many cable television operators to provide Internet access over their existing hybrid fiber-
coaxial (HFC) infrastructure. DOCSIS 1.0 was released in 1997. The most recent version of
DOCSIS (3.1) was released in 2014. The DOCSIS 3.1 specification supports Internet speeds of 10
Gigabits per second (Gbps) for downloads downstream and 1Gbps upstream - the level of
speeds typically only available with a fiber optic connection. For business services, bandwidth
will be scalable from 1 Mbps to 10 Gbps, and as high as 100 Gbps if specific criteria are met.
Comcast also currently offers a 2 Gbps broadband service called Gigabit Pro when certain
conditions are met.
Other Telecommunication Service Providers: Several wireless carriers and builders of shared
infrastructure for the cellular industry are seeking to deploy new communication facilities such
as distributed antenna systems (“DAS”) and small cell technologies in Palo Alto. In the past few
years, AT&T Mobility and Crown Castle have deployed approximately ninety-five (95) DAS and
small cell sites in several areas of the city to improve the coverage and capacity of the carriers’
City of Palo Alto Page 12
mobile networks. These facilities are typically located on City-owned utility poles and streetlight
poles in the public rights-of-way. More deployments are planned by AT&T Mobility (16 small cell
installations), Verizon Wireless (92 small cell installations) and other carriers, in addition to the
builders of shared wireless infrastructure such as Crown Castle (16 small cell installations to add
to the 19 small cell sites built in the downtown area in 2016).
WIRELESS DEPLOYMENT
The expansion of Wi-Fi technology at unserved City facilities and public areas was evaluated with the
Community Services Department (“CSD”). Most City facilities already have Wi-Fi access (“OverAir Wi-Fi
Hotspot”). The outcome of the evaluation reflected concern from CSD regarding the deployment of Wi-
Fi at Rinconada Pool and City parks due to safety concerns. The potential for distracted parents in the
areas of the City where parents are expected to supervise their children is the primary concern. In
addition to potential safety concerns, parks and other open spaces provide an important respite from
technology, a place to “unplug” and focus on spending time with family and friends and to connect with
the outdoors and nature.
The areas of the City where CSD recommends Wi-Fi deployment at common areas in Cubberley
Community Center, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Shop and Cafe, and Lytton Plaza. A high-level cost
estimate for the recommended sites is $165,100 for installation and $6,239 for monthly recurring
charges. Exhibit E – Wi-Fi CSD Site Summary provides estimated costs of the individual sites.
Multiple interviews conducted during the assessment for the Wireless Network Plan indicated there
have been no specific requests from the business community or the general public for Wi-Fi services in
high traffic commercial areas. A significant number of Palo Alto businesses already offer free Wi-Fi
service to patrons as an amenity. Additionally, companies such as AT&T and Comcast have installed and
operate Wi-Fi access points for their customers in many areas of the City and are planning upgrades to
these services in 2017.
It should be noted, too, that other cities’ implementations of municipal Wi-Fi services generally did not
develop the anticipated level of acceptance. Part of the problem with those deployments was related to
the speed and reliability of earlier Wi-Fi technology compared to commercial wireless options. In the
same timeframe that those cities implemented municipal Wi-Fi, the commercial wireless carriers
successfully deployed 3G and 4G data access technologies that have developed a high degree of
consumer acceptance based on cost, performance, and the convenience of essentially universal service.
In contrast, many municipal Wi-Fi deployments served only a limited area and performance in many
cases fell short of user expectations.
Committee Review and Recommendation
Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting
On April 5, 2017, staff reviewed the three above-noted options and the two wireless recommendations
with the UAC and Council Liaison, Council Member Filseth. In general, the Commissioners indicated that
Option 1 is too challenging since voter approval will most likely be required; Option 2 may be feasible,
but a viable business case must be developed first in terms of confirming what the FTTN network would
be used for and to establish the public benefits, return on investment and potential last mile service
City of Palo Alto Page 13
provider models. Regarding Option 3, the UAC stated that the support of third party network upgrades
should be considered a standard activity by the City.
There was significant discussion regarding Option 2 – FTTN Network with Neighborhood/Private Last
Mile Provision. FTTN has potential, but is speculative which is why UAC requested staff to analyze the
benefits and quantify the potential return on investment if the City spent $12 to $15 million on building
the network. Additionally, the City should consider deploying Fiber-to-the-Premises in one
neighborhood as a pilot, thereby limiting the City’s financial exposure and gauging the level of
community interest. Staff should also research potential last mile service provider models. These
models need to be identified and should be technology independent; otherwise, the City will not know
how to design and build the network. The City needs to consider emerging technologies and next-
generation Internet speeds provided by the existing ISPs. Service upgrades by the ISPs may affect overall
community demand for a municipally-owned network. Moreover, staff should identify applications and
services that require gigabit-speed broadband such as virtual reality, telemedicine, telepresence or
telecommunication, and develop a strategic plan outlining phased deployments of these applications.
FTTN has the potential to be a foundational technology that may allow the City to support smart grid
applications such as communicating with smart meters, utility supply and demand applications, and gas
and water leakage detection. These applications are available and currently being deployed by other
municipal and investor-owned utilities.
The Commissioners unanimously approved the recommendation that wireless expansion to all the
unserved City facilities identified in the staff report should move forward, with the exception of the Golf
Course Pro Shop and Café. The Commissioners unanimously approved discontinuing efforts to build a
City-provided public Wi-Fi network in high traffic commercial areas.
Ongoing Initiatives
Fiber Network Rebuild Project
In fiscal year 2016, the City established a new capital improvement project, Fiber Optic System Rebuild
(CIP FO-16000), to rebuild portions of the dark fiber network for improved reliability and increased
capacity. The rebuild project will install new aerial duct or substructures (conduit and boxes) and
additional fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near
capacity and allows CPAU to meet commercial customer requests for service. See Exhibit F - Fiber Optic
Network Rebuild Project for project description and current status.
In the FTTP Master Plan, CTC noted that it’s important to recognize that the rebuild reinvestment does
not increase the attractiveness of the fiber to encourage a partner to build FTTP. The current
commercial dark fiber reach would be a relatively small portion of the total FTTP investment, and a
citywide FTTP endeavor will likely benefit little from commercial dark fiber expansion.
Dig Once
The Council’s September 28, 2015 Motion directed staff to develop a “dig once” ordinance. The basic
objective of dig once is to promote broadband by lowering the cost of building infrastructure by making
it unnecessary to tear up the streets every time a company wants to reach new homes with its
underground network. In the above-noted informational update provided to the Council on December
12, 2016, staff provided a summary of the issues related to developing an ordinance or policy in view of
the changes nationwide and in Palo Alto with the third party telecommunications providers. The
assumption in 2015 was that the City should actively encourage or require simultaneous underground
City of Palo Alto Page 14
construction and co-location of broadband infrastructure in the public rights-of-way with the intention
of creating benefits for both the City and private sector communications providers. Establishing a dig
once policy may reduce the long-term cost of building communications facilities by capitalizing on
significant economies of scale as outlined in the informational update.
At this time, telecommunications providers are not proposing the same citywide, large scale excavations
or builds that the City was anticipating back in 2015 with a Google Fiber build. Instead, with Google
Fiber’s reorganization and apparent retreat from a comprehensive infrastructure build, the City is
finding that incumbent telecommunications providers are more inclined to explore incremental
expansions or, where the scope of a project is larger, above ground builds on utility poles. As a result,
staff is reevaluating the approach to dig once and has met with AT&T, Comcast and other companies
that may propose large scale excavation projects in the future. These discussions are ongoing. Staff is
also reviewing existing Municipal Code provisions governing Third Party Coordination in the public
rights-of-ways and Joint Trench Coordination in Underground Districts, including specifically an
assessment of how cross-departmental teams (Utilities, Public Works, Development Center and
Planning) currently work together on both City-initiated and third party infrastructure projects to
determine if there are other joint opportunities for streamlining and improvement.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Depending on the option selected for fiber and broadband expansion, staff will develop cost estimates
and work plan and return to Council for approval.
An estimated $165,100 for one-time equipment and installation costs and monthly recurring charges of
$6,239 are required to expand Wi-Fi in unserved City facilities. Funding is available in the FY 2017
operating and capital budgets for the Fiber Fund for the contract amendment and one-time installation
fees. The monthly recurring charges will be allocated to the respective departments consistent with the
City’s existing chargeback model.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The fiber and wireless activities are consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by the
Council in 1997, to facilitate advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in an environmentally
sound manner (Reference CMR: 369:97- Proposed Telecommunications Policy Statements).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Policy and Services Committee’s recommendation that Council approve fiber utility and wireless
deployment recommendations is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under
section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies for possible future action) and section 15301 (Negligible
Expansion of Existing Facilities). Necessary environmental review will be performed in advance of any
Council action, including approvals, adoptions or funding where required.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Fiber History and Initiatives
Attachment B - Council Motion Status
Attachment C - Draft UAC Minutes April 5 2017 - Item 2 Fiber and Wireless Expansion
Attachment D - Palo Alto Existing Market Assessment
Attachment E - WiFi CSD Site Summary
Attachment F - Fiber Optic Network Rebuild Project
Utilities Department Version: 2.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 1 of 5 Date Last Updated 02/04/17
HISTORY OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DARK FIBER OPTIC BACKBONE NETWORK
FIBER‐TO‐THE‐PREMISES AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVES
This document is intended to provide a summary of the highlights of the City’s dark fiber optic backbone network, in
addition to various initiatives to expand the network for citywide fiber‐to‐the‐premises and wireless services.
City of Palo Alto Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network
The dark fiber optic backbone network (“fiber network”) was originally conceived by the City in the mid‐1990s and is
maintained and operated by City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”). The City’s initial telecommunications strategy was to build
a dark fiber ring around Palo Alto that would be “capable of supporting multiple network developers and/or service
providers with significant growth potential.” In the mid‐1990s, most investor‐owned and public utilities invested in fiber
optics to improve command and control of their utility infrastructure. Many of these networks typically had excess
capacity that could be licensed or leased to third parties.
The first phase of the fiber backbone construction occurred in 1996‐1997. The initial portions of the network were
constructed in a backbone ring architecture in existing utility rights‐of‐way. The fiber backbone was routed to pass and
provide access to key City facilities and offices. The majority of the City’s business parks (e.g. Stanford Research Park) and
commercial properties are also passed by the fiber backbone. The original fiber backbone consisted of 33 route miles with
144 or more strands of single‐mode fiber along most routes. Since the late 1990s, the fiber backbone has been expanded
to approximately 49 route miles of mostly 144‐ or 288‐count single‐mode fiber.
Fiber network construction was financed internally by the Electric Enterprise Fund through a 20‐year, $2 million loan at a
0% interest rate. These funds were used to construct the network and to cover operating expenses. At the end of Fiscal
Year 2008, the fiber optics business completed the loan repayment to the Electric Enterprise Fund for all capital and
operating expenses from the beginning of the project. A separate Fiber Optics Enterprise Fund, capable of maintaining its
own capital and operating budgets and financial operating reserve, was also created. In Fiscal Year 2009, a Fiber Optics
Enterprise Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) was established.
The fiber network was built in part in response to telecommunications service providers such as emerging Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) that would use available dark fiber to provide various telecom services. In the mid‐1990s,
there was a high demand for fiber transport facilities to support the expansion of bandwidth‐intensive broadband services.
By the late 1990s, many CLECs left the market either through mergers with other CLECs or bankruptcy; the so‐called “dot
com bust” also occurred at roughly the same time. As a result, the anticipated demand for dark fiber in the original target
market proved to be somewhat limited. By the late 1990s there was a glut of available dark fiber in many areas of the
country. Nonetheless, it was evident that a fiber network would be a valuable asset for command and control of City of
Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) facilities (e.g. electric substations) and other critical City infrastructure such as traffic signals.
The network would also support a wide range of broadband voice, data and video applications for City departments, in
addition to various commercial users, telecommunications service providers, and the community as a whole.
EXHIBIT A
Utilities Department Version: 2.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 2 of 5 Date Last Updated 02/04/17
In 2000, the City began to license “dark fiber” for commercial purposes. Dark fiber is unused fiber through which no light
is transmitted, or installed fiber optic cable not carrying a signal. The basic business model is to provide dark fiber
connectivity to users requiring access to large amounts of bandwidth. Customers are responsible for providing and
maintaining the equipment to “light‐up” or provision licensed fiber strands. Dark fiber is licensed or leased by a provider
such as the City without the accompanying transmission service. In contrast, traditional telecommunication service
providers only make available certain products (commonly known as “managed services”) within their service options that
may not adequately meet the requirements of the specific applications.
The fiber network has high market share and brand awareness among commercial enterprises and other organizations
that need the quantity and quality of bandwidth provided by direct fiber optic connections.
By connecting to the City’s fiber backbone, the customer gains fiber access to their Internet Service Provider (ISP) of choice.
A dark fiber customer can interconnect communications systems or computer networks across multiple Palo Alto locations
and can also connect directly to their local and/or long distance carrier(s) of choice with a full range of communications
services. Dark fiber customers can also have redundant telecommunication connections for enhanced reliability.
Many of the City’s commercial dark fiber customers gain access to the Internet through the Palo Alto Internet Exchange
(PAIX, now owned by Equinix). PAIX is a carrier‐neutral collocation facility and hosts over 70 ISPs at their facility located
in downtown Palo Alto. Equinix has 21 similar facilities in the United States and other collocation facilities in Asia and
Europe.
The City currently licenses dark fiber connections to 107 commercial customers. The fiber network also serves the
following City accounts: IT Infrastructure Services, Utilities Substations, Utilities Engineering, Public Works, Water Quality
Control Plant and Community Services (Art Center). The total number of dark fiber service connections serving commercial
customers and the City is 219 (some customers have more than one connection). At the end of fiscal year 2016, the
licensing of dark fiber service connections resulted in a fiber reserve of approximately $24 million. There is a separate
$1.0 million Emergency Plant Replacement fund. According to the proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Budget, the fiber reserve is
projected to increase by $2.3 million.
Annual dark fiber license revenues come from the following customer categories:
• City service connections: 27% of gross revenues.
Private sector entities licensing dark fiber from the City:
Resellers: 42% of gross revenues. “Resellers” are telecommunication companies that purchase large amounts of
transmission capacity from other carriers and resell it to smaller end‐users. Examples of resellers are telecom
companies that sell broadband, telephony and video services to the commercial and residential markets.
Various commercial enterprises: 31% of gross revenues. Examples of private end‐users are companies involved in
various technologies, web hosting, social media, finance, medical, pharmaceuticals, research and development,
software, law firms, consulting firms, e‐commerce, etc.
Utilities Department Version: 2.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 3 of 5 Date Last Updated 02/04/17
Service offerings: Dark fiber backbone license fees are based on the number of fiber miles per month. The base license
price is $272.25 per fiber mile, per month. Quantity, route, length, topology, and other discounts are available. The
minimum backbone license fee is $425 per month. Lateral connection (premises to backbone) fees are based on the
length and type of the lateral, with a minimum fee of $210. Available configurations include point‐to‐point and diverse
rings.
The majority of business parks and commercial properties are passed by the fiber backbone. In 2014, CPAU completed a
project to serve all Palo Alto Unified School District facilities with dark fiber service connections.
2016 ‐ 2017: In 2016, CPAU retained Celerity Integrated Services, Inc. to provide a one‐time comprehensive review and
audit of the City dark fiber optic network. Celerity completed the review and audit and provided a physical description of
the network; documented the number of fiber strands, in addition to conducting an inspection of 90 fiber nodes/cabinets
(i.e. network splice points) to identify what is labeled within the individual nodes/cabinets.
CPAU Engineering is currently working with CAD Masters to reconcile the audit data provided by Celerity with various fiber
databases, in addition to rebuilding front‐end databases to facilitate fiber assignments at the engineering level and to
improve network mapping.
In 2017, CPAU initiated a $1.3 million backbone rebuild project that will install new aerial duct or substructure (conduit
and boxes), in addition to fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near
capacity. This project will allow CPAU to meet customer requests for services. The project areas primarily cover the
Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto Internet Exchange/Equinix at 529 Bryant, and Downtown areas. This project basically
“overlays” new fiber over existing fiber routes in the network. Existing fiber will continue to serve City facilities and
commercial dark fiber customers.
Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises
For more than fifteen years, the City has worked to develop a business case to build a citywide fiber‐to‐the‐premises
(“FTTP”) network to serve homes and business. A number of business models have been evaluated. The following is a
summary of the highlights to develop a network:
1999: A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to build citywide FTTP. There were no viable bids.
2000‐2005: The City Council approved a Fiber‐to‐the‐Home (“FTTH”) trial to determine the feasibility of providing citywide
FTTH access in Palo Alto. The FTTH trial passed 230 homes and included 66 participants in the Community Center
neighborhood. The purpose of the trial was to test the concept of fiber‐to‐the‐home. The FTTH trial proved successful
(i.e., proved technical feasibility), but when initial investment and overhead expenditures were included in the calculation
to create a business case, it was not profitable for the City and the trial was ended.
2006‐2009: In 2006, the City issued another RFP and negotiated with a consortium of private firms to build FTTP under a
public‐private partnership model. In 2009, Staff recommended to Council termination of the RFP process and negotiations
due to the lack of financial resources of the private firms.
2010: The City responded to Google Fiber’s Request for Information.
Utilities Department Version: 2.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 4 of 5 Date Last Updated 02/04/17
2011: Staff worked with two telecommunications consulting firm to evaluate the expansion of the existing dark fiber
network for its commercial dark fiber licensing enterprise and also to expand the network on an incremental basis to
attract a “last mile” FTTP builder and operator. This is a link to the staff report provided to the Utilities Advisory
Commission in June of 2011, and the Council Finance Committee in November of 2011:
Subject: Provide Feedback on the Development of a Business Plan for the Citywide Ultra‐High‐Speed Broadband System
Project
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27421
2012: Staff worked with a telecommunications consulting firm to study the feasibility of an alternative model for citywide
FTTP which would rely on homeowners paying on a voluntary basis for some or all of the cost to build‐out the existing
dark fiber network into residential neighborhoods. The name of this model is “user‐financed” FTTP. The analysis
concluded that an opt‐in FTTP network can be built using a combination of upfront user fees and City financing; however,
there is very little probability of the debt incurred being repaid through operations. Ongoing subsidies would be required,
very likely in excess of surpluses in the Fiber Optics Fund reserve generated by licensing dark fiber. The study was
supported by a market survey which concluded there was limited interest among residents in this model. This is a link to
the staff report provided to the Utilities Advisory Commission in June 2012:
Subject: Request for Feedback Concerning the Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112
2013 ‐ 2015: The City Council started it’s “Technology and the Connected City” initiative and directed staff to prepare a
Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan. In 2015, staff worked with a telecommunications
consulting firm to prepare these plans and they are provided for your review in this September 28, 2015 Council staff
report:
Summary Title: Discussion of Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises and Direction on Next Steps for Fiber and City Wireless Services
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073
At the September 28, 2015 Council meeting, staff and the consultant reviewed these plans with the Council Members. As
a result, a Council Motion directed staff to pursue several initiatives, which are described in this August 16, 2016 staff
report which updated the Council about the various activities from the Motion:
Summary Title: Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises update on City Council Motions and Google Fiber
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53363
2014 ‐ 2016: Google Fiber announced Palo Alto as a potential “Google Fiber City” for a build‐out of their fiber optic
network. Since early 2014, staff has been engaged with Google personnel to complete an extensive checklist process
regarding City infrastructure and processes, in addition to negotiating agreements for a project description, utility pole
attachments, encroachment permits, environmental reviews and other agreements for cost recovery for use of staff time.
Based on Council direction, staff has also worked with Google to develop a “co‐build” concept which would explore the
feasibility of building a City network in parallel with Google’s network. In July 2016, Google announced a delay in their
plans for up to six (6) months to build a fiber optic network in Silicon Valley, which also included Mountain View, San Jose,
Utilities Department Version: 2.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 5 of 5 Date Last Updated 02/04/17
Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Google advised staff that they are exploring more innovative ways to deploy their network,
which may include implementing wireless technologies. Co‐build discussions have also been delayed.
In the summer of 2016, the City approved permits for two cabinets so AT&T can begin to deploy their “AT&T Fiber” service.
AT&T is exploring deployment of additional cabinets in 2017. Based on Council direction, staff is also pursuing co‐build
discussions with AT&T.
On December 12, 2016, staff provided Council with an informational update regarding Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises and wireless
initiatives:
Summary Title: Update for Fiber‐to‐the‐Premises and Wireless Initiatives:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55016
Wireless Network Plan
Based on the above‐mentioned Wireless Network Plan, Council directed staff to issue an RFP for a Point‐to‐Multipoint
Secure Access Network for Public Safety and Utilities communications, in addition to an RFP for a Mobile Broadband
Network to improve “in‐vehicle” broadband access in Public Safety vehicles. Staff is also working to extend the City’s
existing Wi‐Fi service to other City facilities that are currently unserved. Most key City facilities already have Wi‐Fi available
for staff and public use.
Staff Work Plan Update: City Council Motion from September 28, 2015 (CMR ID #6104) and
status of November 30, 2015 (CMR ID #6301) staff recommendations:
Task Target Date Status
1
Council requests an update to the consultant’s
report including:
a In the FTTP Master Plan:
12/31/2015
Completed. Reviewed
assumptions for outside plant
costs and capital additions in FTTP
Master Plan with CAC and CTC on
1/21/16 and 2/18/16. CAC now in
agreement with CTC’s FTTP
network cost estimates and there
are no discrepancies to report.
Detailed assumptions, and their impacts,
used to forecast the FTTP capital additions
are to be reviewed by Citizen Advisors if
there is a disagreement between the
consultant’s report and the CAC’s
recommendation, the Staff Report to
Council will highlight the discrepancy.
Once this is accomplished, a revised
forecast is to be provided to the Council as
an Action Item;
b In the Wireless Network Report:
i.A 20‐year forecast should be provided
consistent with the FTTP report;12/31/2015 Completed
ii.The description of Scenario 1 lacked
both a price forecast and fiber backhaul
details for the proposed municipal
properties to be served. These details
should be included in an update prior to an
RFP. Evaluate expanding wireless access in
retail areas, with an option for expanding
Wi‐Fi coverage at City facilities and public
areas as part of the RFP (Scenario 1);
9/30/2016
Completed.
City Staff has developed cost
estimates for the extension of
existing City Wi‐Fi to unserved
City facilities & public areas/parks.
The evaluation of expanding Wi‐Fi
access in retail areas showed that
Wi‐Fi coverage in retail areas is
adequately provided by the retail
institutions. Expanding City‐
EXHIBIT B
provided public Wi‐Fi coverage in
these areas is not recommended
by City Staff.
2
Issue RFP to add dedicated wireless
communications to increase communication
for Public Safety and Utilities departments
(Scenarios 3 and 4);
6/30/2017
In progress.
The draft RFP(s) and cost
estimates are near completion for
the following:
1. Citywide Mobile Data Network
for Public Safety
2. Point‐to‐Multipoint Network
for Secure City Enterprise
Access (Public Safety &
Utilities)
3 Direct Staff to bring a Dig‐Once Ordinance;
Winter/Spring
2017
In Progress.
Staff has met with AT&T, Comcast
and other companies that may
propose large scale excavation
projects in the future. These
discussions are ongoing. The
CAO, in consultation with cross‐
departmental staff, is currently
reviewing the existing ordinance
to identify any possible revisions
to better coordinate joint trench
projects.
4
Direct Staff to discuss co‐build with AT&T and
Google how the City can lay its own conduit to
the premise during the buildouts;
a AT&T TBD
On Hold.
The City met with AT&T
representatives to discuss a co‐
build opportunity as AT&T
updates their AT&T Fiber Internet
service in Palo Alto. Follow up
discussions continue to occur
when AT&T begins upgrading
their existing cabinets in Palo
Alto.
b Google TBD
On‐Hold.
At Google’s request, the
discussion regarding deployment
of FTTP for the 5 proposed Bay
Area cities to identify the
feasibility of various joint build
opportunities and the potential
deployment of Google Fiber in
Palo Alto are on hold while they
examine new, innovative methods
for fiber deployment.
5
Move forward with RFI exploring both Muni‐
owned model with contractors for build and
ongoing operations, and Public—private
model with City owned fiber and private
partner (such as Sonic) operating and owning
electronics, considering both Google in the
market and not;
9/30/2016
Completed.
The 8 RFIs received have been
reviewed and CTC provided an
evaluation report of the RFIs in
Exhibit B. 3 of the respondent
firms were interviewed; none of
the respondent’s proposals
completely align with city goals.
6
Approve a temporary contract position for a
Fiber and Wireless Telecommunications
Project Manager, dedicated to Fiber‐to‐the‐
Premises and wireless initiatives, in the
amount of $228,000 annually, $684,000 for a
period up to three (3) years;
TBD
On‐Hold.
A decision was made to put this
position on hold due to the
Google Fiber “pause.” Staff will
evaluate whether a contract
position or professional services
agreement is needed dependent
on City Council’s decision
regarding staff recommendations.
7
Approve and authorize the City Manager or his
designee to execute amendments to two
contracts with Columbia Telecommunications
Corporation dba CTC Technology & Energy
(“CTC”) as follows:
a
Increasing the not‐to‐exceed amount for
Contract No. C15152568 (Wireless
Network Plan) by $94,490 from $131,650
to $226,140 (includes a 10% contingency
for the provision of related additional, but
unforeseen consulting services) and extend
the contract to June 30, 2016 to develop a
Request for Proposal for dedicated wireless
communications for Public Safety and
Utilities, in addition to evaluating the
expansion of wireless access in retail areas
12/31/2015
Completed.
Amendment finalized on 1/6/16.
b
Increasing the not‐to‐exceed amount for
Contract No. C15152569 (FTTP Master
Plan) by $58,850 from $144,944 to
$203,794 (includes a 10% contingency for
the provision of related additional, but
unforeseen consulting services) and extend
the contract to June 30, 2016 to provide
technical analysis of the Request for
Information (RFI) responses and any
consulting services needed to help develop
a “Dig Once” Ordinance for consideration
by the Council
12/31/2015
Completed.
Amendment finalized on 1/6/16.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF April 5, 2017 MEETING
ITEM 2: ACTION: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve a
Recommendations Concerning: (1) Future Plans for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2)
Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities; and Discontinue Consideration of
City-Provided Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas
Strategic Business Manager Dave Yuan gave an overview of past Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP)
efforts to build a municipally owned network including multiple studies and issuance of various
request for proposals (RFPs) and request for information (RFI). In the last couple years, under
advisement from Council, UAC, City Manager’s Office, and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC),
we’ve pursed numerous FTTP initiatives such as the master plan, Google Fiber effort, co-build
discussions with Google and AT&T, and RFI issuance for a public-private partnership. We have
gathered a lot of valuable information through these endeavors. We’ve come to a point where
we’re asking UAC and Council to provide us direction on where we should focus our efforts
towards in the next year or so. We present you with three options and we would like the UAC
to recommend one of these options to Policy & Services Committee (P&S) and Council.
Option 1 – Explore funding models to finance a municipal FTTP network with an estimated cost
of $77.6M.
Option 2 – Pursue a design a fiber-to-the-node network with an estimated cost of $12M; in
addition, explore different funds models to finance the “last mile” build.
Option 3 – Discontinue pursuing FTTP thus pausing municipal FTTP efforts, redirect resources to
streamline 3rd party upgrades and allow the market to play out.
Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental spoke about the future of wireless services,
stating that most industries will be using wireless for most applications in the future. One of
five U.S. households are now mobile only access to internet. The number of households with
mobile only access is increasing rapidly. It doubled in the last two years from one in ten
households in 2013. He discussed the coming Fifth generation (5G) standard, which is intended
to be a connection fast enough to replace fixed connections such as cable. 5G specifications is
not complete but anticipate it will move to mainstream around 2020. There’s a lot of
experimentation happening today with 5G. It will be far faster than 4G LTE, a minimum of 20
Gigabits for download and 10 Gigabits for upload, and is far faster than physical connections.
5G will be about 2000x faster than 4G and average U.S. broadband will be 400x faster. Google
DRAFT
had stopped its fiber rollout to focus on wireless broadband. Verizon currently has 5G fixed
wireless technology testing underway in “eleven geographies” and “different environments”
including urban and suburban settings. AT&T is piloting in Austin, TX with Intel and Ericsson
using millimeter wave reaching 1GB speeds up and down. Mobile World Congress 2017, the
mobile industry’s biggest trade show, 5G was everywhere. Big players Qualcomm, Ericsson,
Intel, Nokia, and all chip and mobile leaders betting the future on it.
Telecom Italia says Turin, Italy will become 100% 5G by 2020.
Senior Management Analyst Jim Fleming discussed three options being offered tonight for
action on Fiber to the Premises (FTTP). The first option was to implement municipal FTTP. The
cost was estimated at $78M for construction, $8M annual O&M, and would require a 72% take
rate. If the City used $20M from its fiber reserves, required take rate could decrease to 57%. A
key consideration for network implementation is how to fund both capital construction costs
and ongoing operational expenses. Acknowledging that capital and operating costs associated
with a full-scale citywide build-out will be significant, the City will likely have to seek outside
funding and/or internal subsidies to support construction and the FTTP network’s startup costs.
Certain challenges inherent to FTTP deployment are especially pronounced in the Palo Alto. In
particular, high construction and labor costs in the Bay Area result in a higher necessary take
rate to obtain and maintain positive cash flow. As a comparison, other recent analyses
performed by our consultant for municipalities have shown a required take rate in the mid-40
percent range in order to maintain positive cash flow.
The second option was to explore the design of a Fiber-to-the-Node Network, which may
provide a platform for Public Safety and Utilities wireless communication in the field,
communications support for Smart Grid and Smart City applications, and new dark fiber
licensing opportunities. This approach may also create a basis to explore alternative “last mile”
models for Fiber-to-the-Premises, including user-financing, creating Assessment Districts,
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts and/or public-private partnerships. Construction
costs were estimated at $12M to $15M, with unknown ongoing O&M cost and would be
dependent on usage of the network. A FTTN network would require construction of
approximately 62 miles of fiber plant, compared to 230 miles for a citywide FTTP network
deployment. This network would provide access points to connect neighborhood-area backhaul
communications links. The network could be a phased approach for fiber expansion and it may
lower the barriers for potential providers to build the so-called “last mile” from neighborhood
access nodes to the premises, and provide the City with an economically viable deployment
approach. Additionally, this approach may expand the functionality and the choices of
technology that can be implemented for Utilities and Public Safety communications, and
possibly support communication requirements to implement future Smart City and Smart Grid
applications. New opportunities to license dark fiber may also occur, particularly for the
wireless carriers who will be densifying their networks to improve coverage and capacity with
more wireless communication facilities such as small cell antennas deployed within residential
neighborhoods and high traffic commercial areas such as University Ave. These small cell
antennas and other distributed antenna systems will need fiber for backhaul purposes to
connect to the wireless carriers’ macro cellular towers and other network hub sites. This
potential opportunity aligns with the existing commercial dark fiber enterprise. A FTTN
network may include an option for the City to build the “last mile” at a later date, or as a means
of creating an incentive for a private sector partner to build and operate the last mile. Another
potential approach is to direct new investment to neighborhoods that meet established
subscription requirements – in other words “take rates.” If a certain level of interest was met
and property owners were willing to pay for the connections between the neighborhood node
and homes and businesses, assessment districts could be created as an incentive to build FTTP
The third option was to stop evaluation of either FTTP or FTTN and focus on streamlining the
ability for third parties to perform network upgrades in the City, where feasible. In light of the
anticipated upgrade plans by the cable and telco incumbents and challenge in obtaining
sufficient market share, another potential option is pausing any further municipal FTTP
development efforts at this time. In the interest of improving broadband in Palo Alto, another
option is to identify resources and improve coordination of City policies and processes to
facilitate network upgrades by the incumbents and other independent ISPs. To that end, the
objective of this recommendation is to enhance transparency and predictability for third party
providers. Access by third-parties to infrastructure data and assets such as poles, conduits and
public rights-of-ways is essential to encouraging broadband improvements. Ensuring efficient
and predictable processes that enhance deployments is equally important, as with any public
project.
Staff also has two wireless recommendations. The first recommendation is to expand Wi-Fi to
unserved City facilities at common areas in Cubberley, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Shop
and Cafe, and Lytton Plaza. A high-level cost estimate for the recommended sites is $165,000
for installation and $6,200 for monthly recurring charges. The second wireless
recommendation is to discontinue consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas since there
have been no specific requests from the business community or the general public for Wi-Fi
services in high traffic commercial areas. A significant number of Palo Alto businesses already
offer free Wi-Fi service to patrons as an amenity.
Citizen Jeff Hoel serves on the CAC, but expressed his personal views. Hoel referenced a
lengthy email that was sent to the UAC. There is $25M in fiber fund and the dark fiber has
revenue stream of $2.5M per year. User financed approach could be used for part of funding.
If planning smart meters in Palo Alto, City could use Electric Special Project fund for fiber.
There seems to be enough funding to do FTTP. A previous staff report couldn't find the
necessary funds. We can still afford to pay for a very large phase 1 of the project. Sandy, OR
had a contest that showed many neighborhoods were interested.
Citizen Herb Borock stated the FTTP project has been managed under multiple departments
and no decision has been made on whether it’s a project or not. The City just conducted
another lengthy study but now no one wants to give it the time of day. The CAC is not present
tonight, the sense I have is the CAC is simply responding to what staff says should be done.
There have not been substantive discussions, although staff promises stronger action in the
future. The CAC can help, but not in role they have today. Create a demand-driven dark fiber
partnership, then lease fiber to partner. PA is unique, we have bridge funding for the additional
fiber. The main thing is Council needs to make a choice. If we study for 2 more years, it will
take too long.
Commissioner Ballantine said he did not think much about the options had changed since the
previous year’s discussion. He thought the best idea was some kind of citizen referendum about
whether it would be possible to raise funds for the rollout. He said tonight’s recommendation
did not align with the Council’s guidance. He did not see any way to reasonably approve any of
the three options. It was not reasonable to abandon the effort given Council direction. He
thought FTTN might end up coming for free as a result of the smart grid buildout. He
understood the issue with financing.
Commissioner Johnston said a member of the public had e-mailed with questions about
conflicts of interest. He said he did not have a conflict, and that he did not own the stocks cited
in the e-mail. He asked what the revenue might be from an FTTN rollout.
Fleming said it was difficult to predict the revenue, but the business model was in line with the
City’s current business model. The City currently partnered with resellers of the City’s dark fiber
service. By contrast, competition in the area of FTTP was very difficult, a new service for the
City, with two existing incumbents to compete with.
Commissioner Schwartz asked staff to confirm that FTTN would support a 5G rollout.
Reichental confirmed fiber was essential to support better wireless.
Commissioner Schwartz said it would be helpful to talk about applications that would be
enabled by 5G, rather than listing speeds. It helped people relate to the discussion effectively.
She also suggested something such as a “scholarship fund.” If there was a startup or nonprofit
that required fiber, she would like to see the City provide that service at a lower rate. She said
she had seen progress since the previous year’s discussion, particularly the inclusion of the
FTTN option. Lastly, she clarified that in her Commissioner comments, when she had mentioned
Chattanooga Electric Power Board, that organization was evaluated as a utility rather than a
telecom.
Yuan spoke to the “scholarship fund” idea, saying staff could consider adding fiber under the
Emerging Technology program. He said regarding the comments on lack of progress, most of
the work over the last couple years have been focused on a potential partnership with Google
Fiber, which had not panned out.
Commissioner Danaher said option three was not that feasible. Staff had seen how difficult it
was to work with a third party when collaborating with Google Fiber, and he had seen AT&T
make excuses and delay, such as the color requirements for equipment cabinets, to delay
rollouts. He asked about FTTP, and whether the City would be the service provider or license to
third parties. He also said that option #1 will pass all homes, but there’s no data collection.
Fleming said in an FTTP rollout it was best for the City to be the provider, but pulling together
those services, such as providing cable services, was difficult. It was typically a money-losing
business for a small operator. The classic “triple-play” model is outdated. It was possible to
partner with an ISP, but that would be a revenue sharing situation, meaning it would be difficult
to make any return on investment. The breakeven take rate required to make FTTP work was
very high, making it difficult even without a revenue sharing arrangement.
Commissioner Danaher said it would be a matter of what the City was willing to subsidize.
Fleming said that was the case. He noted that Chattanooga, a commonly cited public provider,
had built their system using Federal grants, had built it out to roll out a smart grid service, and
had been underserved by other telecom providers. One-third of the build costs came from
federal grants and they were able to allocate costs against their electric utility. Comcast
answered by performing upgrades in Chattanooga to maintain their market share.
Commissioner Danaher asked whether there would be just one provider on the City network.
He noted the challenges with that approach. He asked how the buildout of the last mile of an
FTTN network would work. How does FTTN get us to FTTP?
Fleming said there were few ISPs who would be interested in partnering and capable of
providing services to all homes in the community. Fleming said it's speculative, we might attract
a partner. The last mile is the most expensive part of the build and the provider would
probably want a guaranteed take rate.
Commissioner Danaher asked about the alternative in which citizens signed up as a
neighborhood to fund the last mile.
Fleming said user-financing has been considered but there wasn’t enough community interest
given the costs. Nowadays, connections to homes could be wireless, which costs much less.
The home owner could pay for the wireless connection.
Reichental noted that it was more likely that the last mile would be served wirelessly by 5G
providers.
Fleming said that was the likely future business model for Google Fiber.
Commissioner Danaher said it was important to distinguish between the business model and
the technology. The business model must be thought through. He said the City could subsidize
connections and amortize them over twenty years. He agreed with the assessment on the
technology, but still had questions about the technology.
Councilmember Filseth asked whether future wireless technologies could replace the need for
fiber backhaul.
Reichental said it was hard to predict, but he did not see anything on the horizon. There was a
need for fiber backhaul for good wireless services.
Councilmember Filseth said two things have changed in the past one and a half years. First is
whether we get on the Google train? Second, there’s more clarity on 5G and it’s looking more
realistic where fiber to node and wireless to the home is more likely. The fundamental question
regularly raised was why the City would want to be in this business in the first place given there
are commercial providers and there are a lot of technology services the City does not provide
such as ISP, commercial cellular or citywide commercial Wi-Fi. He said he could not speak for
the whole Council, but for some the motivation related to a “bad scenario” was one in which
laying fiber was so expensive that the first provider in became the sole provider, and he was
concerned that with a natural monopoly the operator could end up being rapacious. The
concern is we don’t want to operate the network but if the monopoly provider is not servicing
our community, we wanted an insurance policy against the “bad scenario” such as “dig once”
with Google. It seems that 5G and wireless are looking concrete enough at this point, that if we
pursue the same path as the incumbents, we would avoid the “bad scenario” because there will
be multiple providers. Under option 1, there's a risk that we could have a $50M - $100M boat
anchor years down the road; if the service provider could provide enough bandwidth through
wireless and avoid the massive investment in trenching and adding fiber. He would be cautious
in making the investment now under option 1 and would want to see what happens with
wireless. The City would likely not lose by delaying a short time. FTTN is a much cheaper
option; it could work if wireless is used for the last mile. He also wondered whether FTTN might
be obsolete eventually. Is this a logical thought process?
Reichental agreed. This is similar to Clay Christensen’s “disruptive innovation” model where a
company goes along a path of innovation but an upstart enters the market and makes the
technology obsolete. This happens often.
Commissioner Ballantine suggests to prevent a “bad scenario” under option 2, can we
implement a neighborhood lottery? Build to the node and extend to premise in one
neighborhood, gather data, and experiment partnership models. If a “bad scenario”
materializes, we can stop and the cost is marginal.
Chair Cook thanked staff for the presentation. He said option one was infeasible without a vote,
given the high costs and take rate required. His “bad scenario” was spending a lot of City money
and having it become worthless. Option 2 seemed promising on its face since the Fiber Fund
has $20M - $25M in reserves, but wondered whether there was really enough value in that
option to move forward. Per Jeff Hoel, is this “fiber to the nothing” or “fiber to the node”? He
said the benefits for option 2 had to be quantified before the City moved forward. Is there
really a tie-in with smart grid and what’s the advantage of advanced meters and smart devices?
He said some of the possible benefits sounded interesting, but a clearer benefit had to be
shown. He was skeptical about 5G, and wanted a clearer explanation of the value. Will FTTN
encourage something, not just something speculative? He did not like option 3. He also did not
think municipal Wi-Fi was a good idea. He thought the golf course can pay for its own Wi-Fi.
Vice Chair Danaher said he agreed that more work needed to be done on the service provider
model associated with FTTN. Under option 2, need to explore design of FTTN, identify service
provider model and financing mechanisms. It should be technology independent.
Councilmember Filseth said in looking at option 2, it seems pretty likely that next generation
wireless will be much faster than now. If the incumbents are offering 20Mb-40Mb and citizens
can get these speeds directly from them without going through the city; we need to think about
this when researching. We need to assess the value of option 2. Some customers will pay more
for faster speed but most are probably content with their existing service.
Reichental said he was 100% confident various wireless providers would provide speeds above
what Filseth stated.
Councilmember Filseth said 3G had not rolled out anywhere near as quickly as had been
expected. 2.5G carried people a long way.
Vice Chair Danaher said there were many virtual reality startups, and there were a variety of
applications even beyond entertainment such as work, medical, telepresence and other
applications that have not been invented. It would require very fast gigabit connection speeds.
Commissioner Schwartz said option 2 is a foundational technology. FTTN which would enable a
variety of new technological applications, such as smart grid, interval meters, supply and
demand applications and gas and water leak detection which already exists. She said it was
hard to find any businesses really using telepresence. But she said that if virtual reality became
more prevalent, the FTTN investment would not be a waste of money since it would enable
technology for these types of applications. She expected that the consultants hired for the
strategic plan would address these issues. We need to build a strategic plan outlining phased
application deployment.
Commissioner Ballantine said Palo Alto doesn't have underground wiring citywide. Earlier
underground wiring costs more to maintain but future undergrounding was made better
because of lessons learned. Utilities has a plan to underground in a piecemeal fashion. For
option 2, add an element of option 1 as an experiment so we’re able to learn from it.
ACTION: Commissioner Schwartz made a motion to recommend Council approval of Option
Two, taking into account UAC feedback on that option including the idea of a neighborhood
beta. Commissioner Danaher seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0), with
Chair Cook, Vice Chair Danaher and Commissioners Ballantine, Johnston, and Schwartz voting
yes and Commissioners Forssell and Trumbull absent)
Second motion – Commissioner Schwartz, second Ballantine, approve the recommendations on
wireless expansion, excluding extension of Wi-Fi to the golf course and discontinue
consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas. (5-0)
Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment
Final
Prepared for City of Palo Alto
July 2015
EXHIBIT D
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
i
Contents
1 Existing Market Assessment ................................................................................................... 1
2 Enterprise Market ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Dark Fiber Services ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Integra Telecom ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Level(3) ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.3 Zayo ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Ethernet Services .............................................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 AT&T .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 CenturyLink ............................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Cogent Communications ........................................................................................... 5
1.2.4 Comcast ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.5 Level(3) ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.6 Megapath .................................................................................................................. 6
1.2.7 Integra Telecom ........................................................................................................ 6
1.2.8 Verizon ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.9 Windstream Communications .................................................................................. 7
1.2.10 XO Communications ................................................................................................. 7
1.2.11 Zayo ........................................................................................................................... 7
2 Residential and Small Business Services ................................................................................. 8
2.1 Cable ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 DSL .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 AT&T .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 EarthLink ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 MegaPath ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Sonic ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Satellite ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 HughesNet .............................................................................................................. 10
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
ii
2.3.2 Exede ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 DishNET ................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Wireless .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Verizon .................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Sprint ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.3 AT&T ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.4.4 Cricket Wireless ...................................................................................................... 12
2.4.5 T‐Mobile .................................................................................................................. 12
2.4.6 Etheric Networks ..................................................................................................... 13
Figures
Figure 1: Integra Telecom Network Map ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Level(3) Dark Fiber Routes ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Zayo Fiber Map ................................................................................................................ 4
Tables
Table 1: Overview of Residential and Small Business Data Services in Palo Alto ........................... 8
Table 2: Comcast Residential Internet – Internet Only .................................................................. 9
Table 3: Comcast Small Business Internet – Internet Only ............................................................. 9
Table 4: AT&T Residential Internet – Internet Only ..................................................................... 10
Table 5: Etheric Networks Internet Services ................................................................................ 13
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
1
1 Existing Market Assessment
This existing market assessment provides an overview of providers that currently offer services
with which the City’s potential new fiber‐to‐the‐premises (FTTP) enterprise might compete. The
information provided here is based on what was publicly available—providers often do not
publish extensive information about their networks (e.g., capacity and other specific details).
2 Enterprise Market
This section summarizes competitors for dark fiber and Ethernet services with respect to the
enterprise customers within the City of Palo Alto.
During the course of our research, we identified 11 service providers in the Palo Alto area that
offer a range of services from dark fiber connectivity to data transport services, with speeds that
range from 1 Megabit per second (Mbps) to 100 Gigabits per second (Gbps). Individual providers
tailor these services to a customer’s requirements, such as speed and class of service. Greater
proximity to the provider’s existing network infrastructure results in lower service pricing.
Providers prefer to offer transport services between locations on their network (On‐Net) and
provision Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based services for connecting locations that are
Off‐Net.
A trend that we expect to continue is the consolidation of competitors through mergers and
acquisitions. Competitors are discussed in detail in the following sections.
1.1 Dark Fiber Services
In addition to the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) dark fiber offering,1 our analysis found that
three service providers in the City offer dark fiber services2: Integra Telecom, Level (3) and Zayo.3
There may be other providers that offer dark fiber (e.g., on a case‐by‐case basis), but this analysis
yielded information only about the three discussed here.
1.1.1 Integra Telecom
Integra Telecom offers dark fiber services within the city. They provide flexible options in securing
dark fiber through bundles, lease, and indefeasible rights of use (IRU). The dark fiber routes are
depicted in Figure 1.4,5 Dark fiber pricing varies individually, based on distance from the
1 CPAU is engaged in capital improvements for added capacity and to provide additional dark fiber routes.
2 An assessment of the potential impact of alternative dark fiber provider offerings to City of Palo Alto’s existing
dark fiber enterprise is beyond the scope of this analysis.
3 While this analysis yielded only these three, there may be other providers offering dark fiber—for example, on a
case‐by‐case basis.
4 http://www.integratelecom.com/pages/network‐map.aspx, accessed March 2015.
5 As we noted, carriers typically do not publish details such as whether they directly own the routes depicted on
their publicly‐available maps.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
2
provider’s fiber ring. A difference in a few tenths of a mile can lead to significant differences in
the price of dark fiber connectivity due to additional construction costs.
Figure 1: Integra Telecom Network Map
1.1.2 Level(3)
Level(3) has multiple dark fiber routes in Palo Alto as depicted in Figure 2.6 Services are offered
only to select customers based on their application requirements.
6 As we noted, carriers typically do not publish details such as whether they directly own the routes depicted on
their publicly‐available maps.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
3
Figure 2: Level(3) Dark Fiber Routes7
1.1.3 Zayo
Zayo provides dark fiber connectivity over its national network of metro and intercity fiber.8 The
company claims to have proven expertise in deploying major new dark fiber networks and offers
multiple financing options including lease or Indefeasible Rights of Use (IRU). Pricing varies
significantly depending on whether the building is On‐Net or not; if the location is Off‐Net,
construction and splicing costs would apply.9
7 http://maps.level3.com/default/, accessed May 2015.
8 Zayo is also a CPAU Value Added Reseller (VAR), based on conversations with CPAU staff.
9 http://zayofibersolutions.com/why‐dark‐fiber, accessed May 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
4
Figure 3: Zayo Fiber Map10
1.2 Ethernet Services
Most existing service providers offer enterprise‐grade Ethernet based services. These are
typically classified under two categories: point‐to‐point connectivity and access services, such as
Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) and IP Virtual Private Networks (IP‐VPN). Bandwidths range from
1 Mbps to 100 Gbps. Providers prefer to offer MPLS based IP‐VPN services when the service
locations are Off‐Net to avoid construction and installation costs. MPLS based networks provide
high performance for real‐time applications like voice and video, and are typically priced higher.
The carriers who provide these services in the Palo Alto region are AT&T, CenturyLink, Cogent
Communications, Comcast,11 Integra Telecom, Level (3), Megapath, Verizon, Windstream
Communications, XO Communications and Zayo. Prices depend on the bandwidth, location, and
network configuration, whether the service is protected or unprotected, and whether the service
has a switched or mesh structure.
1.2.1 AT&T
AT&T has four different types of Ethernet products—GigaMAN, DecaMAN, Opt‐E‐MAN, and
Metro Ethernet. GigaMAN provides a native‐rate interconnection of 1 Gbps between customer
end points. It is a dedicated point‐to‐point fiber optic based service between customer locations
which includes the supply of the GigE Network Terminating Equipment (NTE) at the customer
10 http://www.zayo.com/network/interactive‐map, accessed March 2015.
11 It appears Comcast may be pursuing the enterprise market more aggressively through means like going into
wireless backhaul. http://www.fiercetelecom.com/offer/gc_backhaul?sourceform=Organic‐GC‐Backhaul‐
FierceTelecom, accessed July 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
5
premises. DecaMAN connects the end points at 10 Gbps and is transmitted in native Ethernet
format similar to GigaMAN, only 10 times faster. Opt‐E‐MAN service provides a switched
Ethernet service within a metropolitan area. It supports bandwidths ranging from 1 Mbps to
1,000 Mbps, and configurations such as point‐to‐point, point‐to‐multipoint, and multipoint‐to‐
multipoint. Metro Ethernet service provides various transport capabilities ranging from 2 Mbps
through 1 Gbps while meeting IEEE 802.3 standards.12
1.2.2 CenturyLink
CenturyLink provides point‐to‐point inter‐city and intra‐city configurations for full‐duplex data
transmission.13 The company offers speeds of 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps.14
1.2.3 Cogent Communications
Cogent Communications’ Ethernet services are available at speeds of 1.5 Mbps to 10 Gbps.15 The
company provides middle mile services with the last mile service provisioned through local
exchange carriers (LEC).16 Often, more competitive pricing and better customer support is
available through Cogent even though the company utilizes the LECs’ last‐mile services. Cogent
has two on‐net locations (data centers) in the City.
1.2.4 Comcast
Comcast provides Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. EPL service enables customers to connect
their Customer premises equipment (CPE) using a lower cost Ethernet interface, as well as using
any Virtual Local Area Networks (VLAN) or Ethernet control protocol across the service without
coordination with Comcast. EPL service is offered with 10Mbps, 100Mbps, 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps
Ethernet User‐to‐Network Interfaces (UNI) and is available in speed increments from 1 Mbps to
10 Gbps.17
It is important to note that Comcast began offering “Gigabit Pro” service in 2015, a 2 Gbps service
priced at $300 per month with installation fees of up to $1,000.18 Given the installation and
monthly fees, this service is priced out of most residential users’ reach. Further, the service does
not have the bells and whistles that traditional Metro Ethernet has—such as committed interface
12
http://www.business.att.com/service_overview.jsp?repoid=Product&repoitem=w_ethernet&serv=w_ethernet&se
rv_port=w_data&serv_fam=w_local_data&state=California&segment=whole, accessed March 2015.
13 CenturyLink is also a CPAU VAR and typically uses ring configuration for redundancy, based on conversations
with CPAU staff.
14 http://www.centurylink.com/business/products/products‐and‐services/data‐networking/private.html, accessed
May 2015.
15 http://www.cogentco.com/en/products‐and‐services, accessed May 2015.
16 Cogent is also a CPAU VAR, based on conversations with CPAU staff.
17 http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/products/ethernet‐private‐line‐technical‐specifications, accessed April
2015.
18 http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/13/8949207/comcast‐gigabit‐pro‐price‐300, accessed July 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
6
rates. However, if Gigabit Pro is successful, it could disrupt the Metro Ethernet market by filling
a mid‐range gap with service and pricing that has not previously existed.
1.2.5 Level(3)
Level (3)’s Metro Ethernet dedicated service is available in bandwidth options of 3 Mbps to 1
Gbps and its Ethernet Virtual Private Line (VPL) offers in speeds ranging from 3 Mbps to 10
Gbps.19 It is an end‐to‐end Layer 2 switched Ethernet service delivered via a Multi‐protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) backbone. Internet services are available in a range of 14 speeds up to 10
Gbps.20
1.2.6 Megapath
Megapath offers business Ethernet services in the Palo Alto area with advertised speeds up to 45
Mbps. Higher speeds are available on a case‐ by‐case basis.21
1.2.7 Integra Telecom
Integra Telecom offers Ethernet services from 1.5 Mbps to 10 Gbps. The point‐to‐point E‐Line
and multipoint ‐to ‐multipoint E‐LAN configurations are available.22
1.2.8 Verizon
Verizon offers Ethernet services under three different product categories—Ethernet Local Area
Network (LAN), EPL, and EVPL. The Ethernet LAN is a multipoint‐to‐multipoint bridging service at
native LAN speeds. It is configured by connecting customer User‐to‐ Network Interfaces (UNIs)
to one multipoint‐to‐multipoint Ethernet Virtual Connection or Virtual LAN (VLAN), and provides
two Class of Service options—standard and real time. The Ethernet Private Line is a managed,
point‐to‐point transport service for Ethernet frames. It is provisioned as Ethernet over SONET
(EoS) and speeds of 10 Mbps to 10 Gbps are available. The EVPL is an all‐fiber optic network
service that connects subscriber locations at native LAN speeds; EVPL uses point‐to‐point
Ethernet virtual connections (EVCs) to define site‐to‐site connections. It can be configured to
support multiple EVCs to enable a hub and spoke configuration and supports bandwidths from 1
Mbps to 10 Gbps.23
19 http://www.level3.com/en/products‐and‐services/data‐and‐internet/vpn‐virtual‐private‐network/evpl/,
accessed March 2015.
20 http://www.level3.com/~/media/files/factsheets/en_ethernet_fs_ethernetmatrix.pdf, accessed April 2015.
21 http://www.megapath.com/data/ethernet/, accessed May 2015.
22 http://www.integratelecom.com/enterprise/products/pages/carrier‐ethernet‐services.aspx, accessed May 2015.
23 http://www.verizonenterprise.com/products/networking/ethernet/, accessed April 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
7
1.2.9 Windstream Communications
Windstream Communications has a nationwide presence serving major metropolitan areas,
including the City, with private line and MPLS VPN services with speeds up to 10 Gbps.24, 25
1.2.10 XO Communications
XO Communications offers carrier Ethernet services at multiple bandwidth options from 3 Mbps
to 100 Gbps over their Tier 1 IP network.26, 27
1.2.11 Zayo
Zayo delivers Ethernet in three service types with bandwidth ranging from 100 Mbps to 10 Gbps
and options like quality of service (QoS) guarantees and route protection based on customer
needs. The different types of services offered are: Ethernet‐Line, which provides point‐to‐point
and point‐to‐multipoint configurations with reserved bandwidth availability; Ethernet‐LAN, with
multipoint configurations having a guaranteed service level; and Ethernet Private Dedicated
Network (E‐PDN) with a completely private, managed network operated by Zayo with dedicated
fiber and equipment.28 As an example of pricing, Zayo charges a monthly recurring cost of $1,613
to $2,090 (depending on contract term) for 1 Gbps point‐to‐point Ethernet service between On‐
Net sites in the Los Angeles region that are three miles apart.
24 http://carrier.windstreambusiness.com/wordpress/wp‐content/uploads/2014/10/Carrier‐Ethernet‐Ordering‐
Guide‐10.8.14.pdf, accessed April 2015.
25 http://www.windstreambusiness.com/shop/products/ca/palo‐alto, accessed May 2015.
26 http://www.xo.com/carrier/transport/ethernet/, accessed May 2015.
27 http://www.xo.com/network‐services/internet‐access/ip‐transit/100G/, accessed May 2015.
28 http://www.zayo.com/ethernet, accessed April 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
8
2 Residential and Small Business Services
Residential and small business customers in the Palo Alto region have access to a range of
services, though individual service options are dependent on location. Table 1 lists the service
providers and minimum price for each type of service that is available in at least some part of the
City.
Table 1: Overview of Residential and Small Business Data Services in Palo Alto
Service
Type Provider Minimum Price
(per month)
Cable Comcast
$29.99
DSL
AT&T $29.95
Earthlink $80
MegaPath $45
Sonic $40
Satellite DishNET $49.99
Exede $49.99
HughesNet $49.99
3G/4G/
WISP
AT&T $50
Cricket $35
Sprint $35
Verizon $60
T‐Mobile $20
Etheric Networks $85
2.1 Cable
Comcast offers internet service from 3 Mbps to 150 Mbps download speeds starting at $29.99
per month in the City as illustrated in Table 2. Promotional rates are available for the first year
after which the rates increase. Discounted prices are available if bundled with another service
like voice or TV.29 On the small business side, multiple options are available starting at 16 Mbps
download speeds up to 150 Mbps download speeds as illustrated in Table 3.30 Bundling with
voice introduces a savings of $30‐$40.
29 http://www.comcast.com/internet‐service.html, accessed March 2015.
30 http://business.comcast.com/internet/business‐internet/plans‐pricing, accessed May 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
9
Table 2: Comcast Residential Internet – Internet Only
PACKAGE INTERNET SPEED REGULAR
PRICE
PROMO
RATE
Economy Up to 3 Mbps download $39.95/mo ‐
Performance
Starter
Up to 6 Mbps download $49.95/mo $29.99/mo
Performance Up to 25 Mbps download $61.95/mo $39.99/mo
Blast! Blast! Internet ‐ up to 105 Mbps download $78.95/mo ‐
Extreme up to 150 Mbps download $114.95/mo ‐
Table 3: Comcast Small Business Internet – Internet Only
PACKAGE INTERNET SPEED PRICE
Starter 16 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload $69.95/mo
Deluxe 50 50 Mbps download/ 10 Mbps upload $109.95/mo
Deluxe 75 75 Mbps download/15 Mbps upload $149.95/mo
Deluxe 100 100 Mbps download/20 Mbps upload $199.95/mo
Deluxe 150 150 Mbps download/20 Mbps upload $249.95/mo
2.2 DSL
Four providers offer DSL services in Palo Alto: AT&T, EarthLink, MegaPath, and Sonic.
2.2.1 AT&T
AT&T offers DSL service for residential customers in Palo Alto starting at as $29.95 per month for
unbundled or standalone DSL service at 3 Mbps with a 12‐month commitment. Additional
options up to 45 Mbps are available as indicated in Table 4.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
10
Table 4: AT&T Residential Internet – Internet Only
INTERNET SPEED REGULAR PRICE PROMO RATE
Up to 3 Mbps download $42/mo $29.95/mo
Up to 6 Mbps download $52/mo $34.95/mo
Up to 18 Mbps download $62/mo $44.95/mo
up to 45 Mbps download $82/mo $44.95/mo
2.2.2 EarthLink
EarthLink provides DSL based business services in the region starting at $80 per month and
offering speeds up to 6 Mbps with 99.9% network availability.31
2.2.3 MegaPath
MegaPath is an Internet service provider that offers speeds of up to 20 Mbps download and 1
Mbps upload for business customers in certain parts of Palo Alto.32 The lowest plan offered by
them is for 1.5 Mbps download speeds at $45 per month.
2.2.4 Sonic
Sonic offers residential internet services at 20 Mbps and 40 Mbps at a rate of $40 per month and
$60 per month respectively in Palo Alto. The service also includes a phone connection. The
provider is promoting the development of gigabit fiber connectivity on a neighborhood by
neighborhood basis depending on the interest shown by consumers.33 Sonic also offers business
internet and phone service in some locations in Palo Alto for $89.95 per month for speeds of 40
Mbps.
2.3 Satellite
Satellite Internet access is available in the area as well and three providers offer the service:
HughesNet, Exede, and DishNET.
2.3.1 HughesNet
HughesNet has four packages available for residential users: 1) Connect Satellite with speeds up
to 5 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload, a monthly data cap of 5 GB, and 5 GB of “bonus” data (10
GB total) for $49.99 per month2) HughesNet Power with speeds up to 10 Mbps download/1
31 http://www.earthlinkbusiness.com/DSL/, accessed March 2015.
32 http://www.megapath.com/services/, accessed May 2015.
33 https://www.sonic.com/availability ,accessed May 2015.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
11
Mbps upload, a 10 GB monthly data cap, and 10 GB of bonus data (20 GB total) for $59.99 per
month; and 3) HughesNet Power Pro with speeds up to 10 Mbps/2 Mbps, a monthly data cap of
15 GB, and 15 GB bonus bytes (30 GB total) for $79.99 per month; and 4) HughesNet Power Max
with speeds up to 15 Mbps/2 Mbps, a monthly data cap of 20 GB, and 20 GB of bonus data (40
GB total) for $129.99 per month.
HughesNet offers two packages for Internet services to small businesses. The Business 50
package provides speeds of up to 5 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload for $69.99 per month
with a 5 GB per month anytime allowance and 10 GB bonus bytes from 2am to 10 am for a total
monthly data allowance of 15 GB. This package requires a two year agreement and only supports
up to five users. The Business 100 package provides the same download and upload speeds of
the Business 50 package, but offers a higher data allowance threshold of 10 GB per month
anytime and 15 GB bonus bytes from 2 am to 10 am for a monthly data allowance of 25 GB. This
package also requires a two year agreement and is best for 5 to just over 10 users.
2.3.2 Exede
Exede offers three Internet packages in the region each with up to 12 Mbps download and 3
Mbps upload speeds. These packages are: 1) Evolution 5 with a monthly 5 GB data cap (excluding
emails and web pages) for $49.99 per month 2) Evolution 20 with a 20 GB monthly data cap for
$69.99 per month and 3) Freedom with unlimited access for $99.99 per month.
2.3.3 DishNET
DishNET offers three residential Internet packages in the region. These packages are: 1) Up to 5
Mbps download speed with a monthly 5 GB data cap and 5 GB of bonus data for $49.99 per
month with a 24‐month commitment; 2) download speeds up to 10 Mbps with a 10 GB monthly
data cap and 10 GB of bonus data for $59.99 per month with a 24‐month commitment; and 3)
up to 10 Mbps download speed with a 15 GB monthly data cap and 15 GB of bonus data for
$79.99 per month with a 24‐month commitment.
2.4 Wireless
There are six providers that offer wireless Internet services in Palo Alto: Verizon, Sprint, AT&T,
Cricket Wireless, T‐Mobile, and Etheric Networks.
2.4.1 Verizon
Verizon offers two 4G LTE data packages with multiple choices for data allowances and pricing
depending on the desired mobility and equipment chosen. The HomeFusion Broadband Package
is a data‐only 4G LTE service with WiFi connectivity and wired Ethernet for up to four devices.
There are download speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps and upload speeds of 2 Mbps to 5 Mbps.
Monthly prices range from $60 for a 10 GB data allowance to $120 for a 30 GB data cap. Overages
are charged at $10 per additional GB. A two‐year contract is required with a $350 early
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
12
termination fee. Verizon offers a $10 monthly deduction for every month completed in the
contract. The Ellipsis JetPack provides a mobile solution with download speeds of 5 Mbps to 12
Mbps and upload speeds of 2 Mbps to 5 Mbps. Prices for the 12 options of data allowances range
from $30 per month for a 4 GB data allowance to $335 per month for 50 GB of data, in addition
to a monthly line access charge of $20.The device is $0.99 with a two‐year contract. There is a
$35 activation fee.
2.4.2 Sprint
Sprint offers 4G LTE wireless data in Palo Alto. The three data packages offered range from 100
MB per month data allowance for $15 per month to 6 GB per month data allowance for $50 per
month to 12 GB per month data allowance for $80 per month. Each MB over the limits is billed
at a cost of $.05. A two‐year contract is required as well as an activation fee of $36, and
equipment charges for three different types of devices. There is also an early termination fee of
$200.
2.4.3 AT&T
AT&T also provides 4G LTE wireless data service in the area, but only offers one package type
with a 5 GB per month download allowance for $50 per month. There is an overage fee of $10
per 1 GB over the limit. There are also equipment charges with or without a contract and an
activation fee.
2.4.4 Cricket Wireless
Cricket Wireless, which recently became a subsidiary of AT&T, offers 4G LTE wireless service in
Palo Alto with a download speed of up to 8 Mbps with three options for data allowance packages.
Starting at $35 per month for 1 GB of data allowed there are also options for data allowances of
3 GB ($45) and 10 GB ($55).Data used beyond allowances are at reduced speeds. There is a $79.99
modem fee for an additional device. There is a $15 activation fee, but no contract or early
termination fees.
2.4.5 T‐Mobile
Of the cellular wireless providers in the area, the least expensive wireless data option offered is
from T‐Mobile for $20 per month with a limit of 1 GB per month. T‐Mobile offers additional
capabilities and increasing data limits at incremental costs in a total of six packages up to $70 per
month for up to 11 GB of data. Depending upon current promotions, the $35 activation fee may
be waived.
CTC Report | City of Palo Alto – Appendix A: Existing Market Assessment | July 2015
13
2.4.6 Etheric Networks
Etheric Networks is a wireless internet service provider (WISP) that provides services in Palo Alto
for speeds up to 30 Mbps.34 The range of speeds and pricing available are indicated in Table 5. A
radio and antenna fee of $299 is also charged during setup and installation.
Table 5: Etheric Networks Internet Services
PACKAGE INTERNET SPEED PRICE
Bronze Up to 5 Mbps download $85/mo
Silver Up to 10 Mbps download $99/mo
Gold Up to 20 Mbps download $139/mo
Platinum up to 25Mbps download $179/mo
Diamond up to 30 Mbps download $229/mo
34 http://ethericnetworks.com/residential/. accessed May 2015.
Fiber Exterior WAP Equipment Aerohive WAP NW Equip
Site #Site name: # sites Address:Monthly Install Mount NIU Monthly WAP Cabling Equipment Totals
Proceed with
Deployment
2 Cubberley 1 4000 Middlefield Rd. 2,361$ 4,200$ 3,500$ 142$ 8,500$ 16,200$
Theater waiting area 2 47$ 2,800$ 800$ 3,600$
Classrooms A ‐ H8 560$ 33,600$ 24,000$ 57,600$
Artist Studio 1 70$ 4,200$ 3,000$ 7,200$
Dance Studio U1 23$ 1,400$ 400$ 1,800$
3 Lucie Stern 1 1305 Middlefield Rd. 647$ 2,400$ 6,000$ 8,400$
Children's Theatre Lobby 2 47$ 2,800$ 800$ 3,600$
Courtyard in front of outdoor theatre 2 47$ 2,800$ 800$ 3,600$
4 & 5 Golf course: Pro Shop & Bay Café 2 1875 Embarcadero Rd. 1,351$ 3,900$ 7,000$ 1,000$ 11,900$
Pro Shop 4 93$ 5,600$ 1,600$ 7,200$
Bay Café 4 93$ 5,600$ 1,600$ 7,200$
9 Lytton Plaza: entire plaza 1 202 University Ave. 635$ 21,000$ 4,500$ 3,500$ 123$ 1,400$ 400$ 6,000$ 36,800$
Monthly Total 4,994$ 1,245$ 6,239$
Installation Total 31,500$ 4,500$ 14,000$ 60,200$ 33,400$ 21,500$ 165,100$
Assumptions and notes:Notes
1 Each connection contains two new fibers from specified location to CC Level A.WAP ‐ Wireless Access Point ‐ $1400
2 Established government rate applied NIU‐ Network interface Unit ‐ $3500
3 Prevaling Utility construction costs Splice ‐ tap point into existing fiber
4 CPAU Fiber does not perform substructure work
5 Support during business hours only (8‐5)
6 Estimates use existing poles at all locations
7 These estimates are high level "desktop" estimates. Actual fees to be determined by field investigation and contractor bids.
Construction Fees
Overhead per span is $1,500
Underground is $75/ft.
Small splice box in the sidewalk $5,000+
Palo Alto Wi‐Fi sites Installation & Monthly Costs (City Staff Estimates )
EXHIBIT E
Utilities Department Version:1.0
Fiber-to-Fiber Premises and Wireless Communication Initiative Page 1 of 1 Date Last Updated
February 1, 2017
Fiber Optic Network Rebuild Project Summary
FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVES
February 1, 2017
Project Description: The rebuild project will install new aerial duct or substructure (conduit and boxes), in addition to
fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near capacity. This project will
allow City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) to meet customer requests for services. The project areas primarily cover the
Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto Internet Exchange/Equinix at 529 Bryant, and Downtown areas. This project basically
“overlays” new fiber over existing fiber routes in the network. Existing fiber will continue to serve City facilities and
commercial dark fiber customers.
2016: As a first step, CPAU retained Celerity Integrated Services, Inc. to provide a one-time comprehensive review and
audit of the City dark fiber optic network. Celerity completed the review and audit and provided a physical description
of the network; documented the number of fiber strands, in addition to conducting an inspection of 90 fiber
nodes/cabinets (i.e. network splice points) to identify what is labeled within the individual nodes/cabinets.
•CPAU Engineering is currently working with CAD Masters to reconcile the audit data provided by Celerity with
various fiber databases, in addition to rebuilding front-end databases to facilitate fiber assignments at the
engineering level and to improve network mapping.
2017-2021 Capital Improvement Projects: The budget for the rebuild was reduced by the City Council during the Fiscal
Year 2016 budget process. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget reflects this adjustment from $2.4 million to $1.3 million. The
rebuild is a CIP charged to “system improvements.”
Rebuild Work in Progress
o Route from PAIX at 529 Bryant to the Park Boulevard Substation. Substructure work, fiber pulling and
cabinet installation are nearing completion. The new fiber installed for the backbone rebuild is 312-
count single-mode fiber (2 x 144-count single-mode fiber, plus 24-count single-mode fiber).
•Upcoming work scheduled over the next 12 months:
o Route from Park Substation to Hansen Substation
o Route from Hansen Substation to Stanford Research Park
o Additional phases/routes to be determined.
Estimated cost is between $500,000 and up to $1,000,000 for substructure work. Approximately another $250,000 for
the overhead portion of the work. CPAU crews are performing the equipment installation, cable pulling and
terminations. CPAU’s substructure contractor is installing the conduit and boxes.
EXHIBIT F
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8173)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/23/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.42 to Prohibit
Commercial Marijuana Activities
Title: Recreational and Medical Marijuana: Review and Discussion of State
Law Developments and Input to Staff on Next Steps, Including Possible
Ordinance Adopting Local Regulations Regarding Commercial Marijuana
Activity, Outdoor Cultivation, and Marijuana Dispensaries. This Action is
Exempt Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Attorney
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and discuss state law
developments regarding recreational and medical marijuana and provide input to staff on next
steps, including potential local regulations.
As a starting point for discussion, staff has prepared a proposed ordinance (Attachment A)
consistent with current City policies on marijuana (prohibiting outdoor marijuana cultivation,
medical marijuana dispensaries, and commercial marijuana activities except for deliveries).
After incorporating Policy & Services’ direction into a revised proposed ordinance, staff
proposes sending zoning code amendments to the Planning & Transportation Commission for
review during the summer, and returning to Council for ordinance adoption in the fall.
Executive Summary
Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), was passed by voters on
November 8, 2016. The AUMA permits commercial marijuana activities, but gives
municipalities the option to prohibit some or all of such activities, including: commercial
cultivation, retail sales, delivery services, distribution, manufacturing of marijuana-containing
products, and testing businesses.1
1 The AUMA also permits personal use activities, such as smoking of marijuana by adults 21 years or older and
indoor growing of up to six marijuana plants for personal use. This ordinance does not address the personal use
activities, but the City Council has the ability to adopt reasonable regulations consistent with the AUMA.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
If the City Council wishes to prohibit some or all commercial marijuana activities, it must enact
an ordinance that goes into effect before January 1, 2018. On that date, the state is required to
begin issuing licenses for commercial marijuana activities under the AUMA, but the state will
not issue a license if such activity is banned by the City.
Presently, the City has two ordinances that regulate marijuana. The first bans medical
marijuana dispensaries and was enacted in 1997 in response to the voter-approved legalization
of medical marijuana. The second bans the outdoor cultivation of marijuana and was enacted
in 2016 and in anticipation of the passage of Proposition 64, but this ordinance will sunset in
November 2017.
If adopted, the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would extend the outdoor cultivation
prohibition indefinitely. The proposed ordinance would also assert the City’s right to prohibit
most commercial marijuana activities permitted under the AUMA, including commercial
cultivation facilities, manufacturing facilities, retailers, and warehouses. The only permitted
commercial activity under this ordinance would be the delivery of marijuana. The proposed
ordinance would also curtail similar commercial activities for medical marijuana permitted
under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which is analogous to the AUMA but
for medical marijuana. These measures will give the City more time to consider which, if any,
commercial activities should be permitted in the City, and whether to adopt more permissive
regulations.
The proposed ordinance would also update the existing prohibition of medical marijuana
dispensaries with a codified subsection.
The state legislature is currently working on a “clean-up” bill to Proposition 64, but despite its
name, the bill could make significant changes to both recreational and medical marijuana laws.
State agencies have also just released draft regulations. Due to the unsettled nature of state
marijuana laws, the City may want to revisit this issue in response to state actions.
Background
Marijuana has been decriminalized in phases in California.2 Medical marijuana was first
legalized by the voters in 1996 upon the passage of Proposition 215.
In response, the City passed an ordinance in 1997 prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries.
While dispensaries were not allowed under the City’s zoning code under the principles of
permissive zoning provisions, the City passed the ordinance to make the prohibition clear.3
2 Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
3 See Ordinance 5399, Section 1 for more analysis of the zoning issues and presumptions regarding medical
marijuana.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In 2015, the Governor approved AB 266, known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act. The Act creates a new licensing system for medical marijuana-related businesses
and imposes regulations on medical marijuana.4
In November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of
Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized marijuana under state law for recreational (non-
medical) and commercial uses. The following is a summary of some of the major provisions:
Recreational possession, use, and personal growing permitted, subject to local regulations.
The AUMA legalized adult (21 years or older) smoking and consumption of recreational
marijuana.5 Adults are allowed to grow up to six plants indoors per residence and possess 28.5
grams of marijuana in public.6 Marijuana grown at home cannot be sold, but can be gifted.7
Smoking is not allowed in any place that already bans tobacco smoking or near schools, and can
only be carried in a closed container in a vehicle (driving while smoking is illegal).8 The City can
enact reasonable regulations that do not conflict with state law.9 This report and the attached
ordinance do not address personal use regulations and these can be addressed in the future.
Commercial activities permitted, subject to local prohibitions.
Proposition 64 legalized several types of commercial marijuana activities, but require a state-
issued license. The AUMA envisions at least three types of state-issued licenses: a license to
cultivate commercially, a license to retail or distribute (which also allows delivery), and a license
to test or manufacture.
Cities have the option to prohibit one or more types of these state-licensed commercial
activities.10 The City Council may adopt an ordinance that identifies which activities are
prohibited within the City. If the City prohibits any commercial marijuana activity, the state
shall not grant a license for such activity within the City.
Conversely, cities that wish to allow all state-licensed commercial activity do not have to pass
an ordinance affirming their intent; it is already state law. For commercial activities that are
allowed, cities can create their own regulations, such as business license requirements and
zoning and land use requirements, among others.
Neighboring cities, including San Jose, have already developed regulations as to medical
marijuana which would likely be extended to all commercial marijuana activities. These
regulations are largely time, place, and manner regulations that set minimum standards for
safety and security, as well as create a permit system for delivery vehicles and drivers. The San
4 Health and Safety Code (H&S) §19300 et seq.
5 H&S §11362.1.
6 H&S §11362.2
7 H&S §11362.1(a)(2).
8 H&S §11362.3.
9 H&S §11362.2(b).
10 Business and Professions Code (BPC) §26200.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Jose City Council has delegated regulation authority to its City Manager. (Note, however, that
the state’s forthcoming marijuana regulations may preempt City regulations.)
Taxes on Marijuana Sales
Taxation of marijuana depends on whether it is for recreational or medical use under the
AUMA. Both recreational and medical marijuana is subject to a new State Marijuana Excise Tax,
which is 15% of the gross receipts of retail sales.11 Recreational marijuana is also subject to
traditional state and local sales taxes. The AUMA also created a new State Cultivation Tax,
which is imposed at the rate of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves.12
Marijuana cultivated for personal use is exempt from the State Cultivation Tax.13
Discussion
The AUMA allows several types of commercial marijuana activities: commercial cultivation,
dispensaries, retail sales, delivery services, distribution, manufacturing of marijuana-containing
products, and testing businesses. The AUMA requires a state-issued license before a person
can conduct these activities. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act allows similar
commercial activities and also requires a state-issued license to operate. The AUMA requires
the issuance of licenses to start no later than January 1, 2018.
Should the City Extend or Modify the Outdoor Cultivation Prohibition?
Last November, Council adopted a temporary ban on outdoor marijuana cultivation that will
automatically sunset in November 2017. To avoid confusion and to ensure that no state
licenses for commercial cultivation are issued before the City can re-address this issue, the
Committee may want to recommend that Council extend the ban on outdoor marijuana
cultivation by removing the sunset provision. Council can revisit the issue and adopt more
permissive rules at any time.
Should the City Restate the Existing Prohibition on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?
The City passed an uncodified urgency ordinance in 1997 to prohibit medical marijuana
dispensaries. To avoid confusion and to ensure that no state licenses for medical marijuana
dispensaries are issued, the Committee may want to recommend that Council re-adopt and
codify a prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Should the City Prohibit Most Commercial Activities Except Deliveries?
Under principles of permissive zoning, commercial marijuana activities for both medical and
recreational use are presumptively prohibited in Palo Alto because they are not listed as
permitted activities in the City’s zoning code. But the AUMA seems to anticipate that cities will
adopt ordinances prohibiting the activities they wish to restrict within their boundaries. To
avoid confusion and preserve local control, the Committee may want to recommend that
11 Rev. & Tax. §34011(a).
12 Rev. & Tax. §34012(a).
13 Rev. & Tax. §34012(j).
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Council add an express prohibition of all outdoor marijuana cultivation and all commercial
marijuana activities except for deliveries to people within Palo Alto. Council can revisit these
issues and adopt more permissive rules at any time.
Timeline
Staff is seeking input and a recommendation from the Policy and Services Committee before
scheduling the proposed ordinance, with modifications recommended by the Committee, for a
hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission this summer.
The goal is to bring an ordinance with recommendations from the Committee and the PTC to
the full Council in September.
The City Council must pass an ordinance that goes into effect by January 1, 2018 if it wishes to
prohibit some or all commercial marijuana activities. Otherwise, the state can issue licenses for
commercial marijuana activities that occur within the City.
In addition, for any commercial activity that is allowed, staff recommends that the City examine
and develop regulations by January 1, 2018 in anticipation of licenses being issued and the
commencement of commercial activity. The City should be cognizant of the development of
state-level marijuana regulations before promulgating its own.
Lastly, should the City wish to regulate personal uses of marijuana, including smoking and
personal indoor cultivation, staff recommends that regulations or laws be developed after the
state issues any relevant regulations, which is anticipated this summer. Staff recommends that
the City Council address commercial uses first to ensure that the City’s ability to regulate in
these areas is established before the state can issue licenses permitting commercial activity.
Resource Impact
Staff does not anticipate a resource impact associated with this ordinance. As with similar
zoning regulations, enforcement would be done on a complaint basis. Any future efforts to
develop additional regulations for commercial marijuana businesses or personal cultivation
would require staff time and could result in zoning or licensing provisions requiring additional
staff resources. Future regulations may require additional law enforcement or code
enforcement resources.
Environmental Review
This proposed ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting
in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this
Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained
in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no
possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Attachments:
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Attachment A - Ordinance Repealing Chapter 9.17 and Amending Chapters 18.04 and
18.42
Attachment B - League of Cities AUMA FAQ
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Safety) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 4422; and Amending
Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18
(Zoning) to Prohibit Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana, Prohibit Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries, and Prohibit Commercial Marijuana Activities, Except for
Deliveries.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows:
A. On June 9, 1997, the Palo Alto City Council adopted uncodified urgency
Ordinance No. 4422 declaring the establishment and operation of medical marijuana
dispensaries to be prohibited use under the City’s zoning ordinance.
B. On October 24, 2016, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5399,
prohibiting the outdoor cultivation of marijuana. That ordinance had a sunset date of one year
from the date the ordinance took effect.
C. On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, known as the
Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which legalized the use, sale, and consumption of
recreational marijuana by persons 21 years of age and older.
D. The AUMA also permits commercial marijuana activities subject to state
licensure, but preserves local governments’ authority to regulate and ban some or all
commercial marijuana activities. (See, e.g., Business and Professions Code section 26200).
E. Outdoor marijuana cultivation; medical marijuana dispensaries, and commercial
marijuana activities are not listed in the City’s zoning code as permitted or conditionally‐
permitted land uses, making them prohibited under the principles of permissive zoning
provisions. (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418). Nevertheless, the state may
not expressly recognize the application of permissive zoning principles as to marijuana‐related
uses.
F. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires
to replace the existing temporary ban on outdoor cultivation at Chapter 9.17 and the
uncodified prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries in Ordinance No. 4422 with new Code
section 18.42.150 to prohibit, in express terms: (1) the outdoor cultivation of marijuana; (2)
medical marijuana dispensaries; and (3) commercial marijuana activities, with the exception of
deliveries.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 4422 of the City of Palo Alto is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add new subsection 18.04.030(a)(94.5) to read as follows:
(94.5) “Marijuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., Cannabis indica, Cannabis
ruderalis, and hybrid strains derived thereof, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the
resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.
(A) “Commercial marijuana activity” means any activity related to cultivation, possession,
manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation,
distribution, delivery or sale of marijuana or products containing marijuana. “Commercial
marijuana activity” does not include personal recreational uses allowed by Health and Safety
Code sections 11362.1 and 11362.2 or personal medical uses allowed by sections 11362.765
and 11362.77, as amended from time to time.
(B) “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana for any purpose.
(C) “Medical marijuana dispensary” is a facility where marijuana is made available for
medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. or any
other provision of state law that authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
SECTION 5. Chapter 18.42 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to add new section 18.42.150 to read as follows:
18.42.150 Marijuana Cultivation and Commercial Activities
(a) Prohibition of open cultivation.
Open marijuana cultivation is not permitted. Personal cultivation permitted under Health and
Safety Code section 11362.2, as amended from time to time, must occur within a locked
structure not visible by normal unaided vision from any public place.
(b) Prohibition of commercial activities.
Commercial marijuana activity is not permitted.
(c) Exception for qualified delivery services.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in section 18.42.150(b), delivery of marijuana is permitted
pursuant to laws of the State of California. This section does not permit any temporary,
persistent, or fixed physical presence used for commercial marijuana activities (including but
not limited to medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, cooperatives, or any other retail
outlets) besides delivery vehicles in the active state of making a delivery.
(d) Prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries.
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
Medical marijuana dispensaries are not permitted.
(e) Regulations.
The City Manager is authorized to approve regulations consistent with this section.
(f) Enforcement.
The City may enforce this section and its regulations in any manner permitted by law and is
entitled to recover all costs, including attorneys fees, related to enforcement. The violation of
this section is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall, at the discretion of the city,
create a cause of action for injunctive relief.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a
“project” within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the
environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a
project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section
15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on
the environment.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after
the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
NOT YET APPROVED
170503 th TS/ORD Amending 9.17
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Principal City Attorney
1
January 9, 2017
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Adult Use of Marijuana Act1
Proposition 64
Question#1: When does the AUMA take effect?
Answer: The AUMA took effect November 9, 2016, the day after the election. But note,
the AUMA requires a state license to engage in commercial nonmedical marijuana
activity. Licensing authorities are required to begin issuing licenses by January 1, 2018 and the League anticipates that the issuance of licenses will not occur much in advance of January 1, 2018. Thus, the AUMA provisions legalizing commercial nonmedical
marijuana activity will not become operational until the state begins issuing licenses
(likely in late-2017). The AUMA provisions legalizing personal use and cultivation of
nonmedical marijuana took effect November 9, 2016.
Question #2: Can private individuals cultivate nonmedical marijuana at home beginning
November 9, 2016?
Answer: Yes, within a private residence by a person 21 years and older for personal use. The AUMA provides that local governments can reasonably regulate, but cannot ban the
personal indoor cultivation of up to six nonmedical marijuana plants per private
residence. This includes cultivation in a greenhouse that is on the property of the
residence but not physically part of the home, as long as it is fully enclosed, secure, and
not visible from a public space. Because this activity is not subject to state licensing requirements, individuals may engage in personal indoor cultivation beginning November
9, 2016, unless a city enacts an ordinance imposing a reasonable regulatory scheme that
would preclude them from doing so before complying with the city’s regulatory
requirements.
Local governments may regulate or ban all personal outdoor cultivation. However, the
AUMA includes language purporting to repeal any ordinance that bans personal outdoor
1 Please consult your City Attorney before taking action to implement the AUMA. The answers to these FAQs may be different in your city based upon your municipal code, regulations, and policies. The answers do not constitute
legal advice from the League of California Cities®.
2
cultivation upon the California Attorney General’s determination that nonmedical use of
marijuana is lawful under federal law.
Question #3: Is there a limitation on the number of marijuana plants that can be cultivated
within a single residence?
Answer: Yes. Not more than six living plants may be planted, cultivated, harvested,
dried, or processed within a single private residence, or upon the grounds of that private
residence, at one time. A “residence” is defined as a house, an apartment unit, a mobile
home, or other similar dwelling. No matter how many persons over 21 years of age are
living in a “residence,” only 6 living plants may be cultivated at one time. (Health &
Safety § 11362.2(b)(3).)
Question #4: Can a landlord ban the cultivation/smoking of marijuana on his or her property? Answer: Yes. An individual or private entity may prohibit or restrict personal
possession, smoking, and cultivation of marijuana on the individual’s or entity’s privately
owned property. A state or local government agency also may prohibit or restrict such activities on property owned, leased, or occupied by the state or local government. (Health & Safety §§ 11362.45(g) and (h).)
Question # 5: Can a city ban personal indoor cultivation in all leased or multi-unit residences
within the city? Answer: No. A city cannot prohibit personal indoor cultivation of marijuana in all leased
or multi-unit residences within the city. However, because cities may reasonably regulate
personal indoor cultivation, a city might be able to condition permit approval for personal
indoor cultivation in a leased residence on the applicant receiving permission from his or her landlord.
Question # 6: Does a city’s ban on commercial cultivation, personal outdoor cultivation, or retail
sales of marijuana or marijuana products make it ineligible for state grant monies for law
enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of Prop 64?
Answer: Yes. If a city bans commercial cultivation, or personal outdoor cultivation, or
retail sales of marijuana or marijuana products, it is ineligible to receive state grant
monies funded through the new state excise taxes that take effect on January 1, 2018. (Revenue and Taxation Code § 34019(e)(3)(D).) Question #7: What does the AUMA say about possession, transporting, purchasing or giving
away of non-medical marijuana?
Answer: A person 21 years of age or older may possess, process, transport, purchase or give away to persons 21 years of age or older not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana in
the non-concentrated form and not more than 8 grams of marijuana in a concentrated
3
form including marijuana products. If the AUMA passes, these activities will be lawful
under state law and cannot be prohibited under local law.
Question #8: Do cities that ban or regulate medical marijuana businesses need to update their ordinances to include nonmedical marijuana?
Answer: Yes. The AUMA prohibits state licensing authorities from issuing a license to a
commercial nonmedical marijuana business if operation of the business violates a local
ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the business will operate. This means that a city wishing to adopt business or land use regulations prohibiting or regulating commercial nonmedical marijuana businesses must adopt an ordinance prior to the date the state
begins issuing licenses, which the League anticipates will be in late 2017.2
Question #9: Can cities be confident that a permissive zoning code, by itself, provides sufficient protection against nonmedical marijuana businesses setting up shop without local approval?
Answer: No. It is unlikely that cities will succeed in arguing that nonmedical marijuana
land uses are prohibited by permissive zoning codes under the AUMA, because the
AUMA does not contain the same protective language as the MMRSA with respect to permissive zoning. Therefore, cities that wish to ban all or some nonmedical marijuana
activities should adopt express prohibitions, even if they operate under a permissive
zoning code.
Question #10: Are cities at risk of losing the opportunity to impose bans on personal outdoor cultivation if they don’t act until after the November election?
Answer: No. A city may adopt an ordinance banning or regulating personal outdoor
cultivation at any time.
Question #11: Are cities at risk of losing the opportunity to impose bans on nonmedical
marijuana businesses, if they don’t act until after the November election?
Answer: No. However, if a city does not adopt an ordinance expressly banning or
regulating nonmedical marijuana businesses before the state begins issuing state licenses nonmedical businesses, a state-licensed nonmedical marijuana business will be able to
operate within its jurisdiction without local permission or permitting. This is due to a
provision in the AUMA that provides that state licenses cannot be issued where the
activity would violate a local ordinance. If a jurisdiction has no ordinance regulating
nonmedical marijuana businesses, then the local regulatory scheme is silent on that type of activity, and the state can unilaterally issue a license under terms fully compliant with
the AUMA. Cities may adopt an ordinance expressly banning or regulating such
operations after the state begins to issue licenses, but it will be difficult to terminate the
state licensee’s operations until the state license is up for renewal. Therefore, the best
practice is to adopt an ordinance before the state begins issuing state licenses.
2 Please see Question #8 regarding the use of public roads for transportation and delivery.
4
Question #12: Can cities ban deliveries under the AUMA?
Answer: Yes. Cities can ban deliveries within their territorial limits. However, cities
cannot prevent the use of public roads for the delivery of marijuana. For example, if a licensed delivery company located in City A must travel on public roads through City B to make an authorized delivery in City C, City B cannot prohibit the licensed delivery
company from travelling on public roads in City B to get to City C. In addition, cities
may not prevent the use of public roads within its jurisdiction to transport nonmedical
marijuana.
Question #13: What is the best way for cities to notify the state licensing agencies of their local
ordinances that regulate and/or prohibit commercial non-medical marijuana activities within their
jurisdictions?
Answer: Unless the state licensing agencies indicate otherwise, cities should mail copies
of their local ordinances that regulate or prohibit commercial nonmedical marijuana
activities within their jurisdictions to the Department of Consumer Affairs, the
Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health. Cities should
regularly check each Department’s website to ensure that this practice complies with any regulations the Departments may pass regarding notice of local ordinances. In addition,
Cities should ensure that any updates or amendments to local ordinances that regulate or
prohibit commercial nonmedical marijuana activities are promptly submitted to each
Department.
Question #14: What are the rules regarding taxation under the AUMA? Is it true that marijuana
can no longer be subject to sales tax?
Answer: Under the AUMA, there is a 15% state excise tax on recreational marijuana,
but medical marijuana is exempt from state and local sales tax altogether. The rationale
is that marijuana consumed for truly medical purposes is no different from conventional
pharmaceuticals, which are also exempt from federal, state, and local sales tax. However,
other forms of excise tax may be levied on all marijuana, whether medical or
recreational. For example, a cultivation tax, a manufacturing tax, or the most common, a
business license tax may still be levied at the local level on any commercial marijuana
activity. But note, because the AUMA levies a state excise tax of 15% on recreational
marijuana, all local governments have reason to be concerned about the cumulative tax
rate when local tax levies are added to that. For that reason, locals are encouraged to
look at existing local taxes and to assess what marijuana-related revenue streams may be
derived from those sources before levying additional taxes that are specific to marijuana.