DATE: |
September 13, 2011 | |||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
September 27, 2011 | |||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
None | |||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |||
FROM: |
David S. Boesch, County Manager | |||
SUBJECT: |
2010-11 Grand Jury Response | |||
RECOMMENDATION: | ||||
Accept this report containing the County’s response to the following 2010-11 Grand Jury report: County Officials Need to Make Noise About Aircraft Noise. | ||||
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION: | ||||
The County is mandated to respond to the Grand Jury within 90 days from the date that reports are filed with the County Clerk and Elected Officials are mandated to respond within 60 days. To that end, included is the County’s response to the “County Officials Need to Make Noise About Aircraft Noise” report issued on July 6, 2011. | ||||
The San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable) was created in 1981 by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and County of San Francisco, the County of San Mateo, and several cities in San Mateo County, as a voluntary committee, to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). There is no local, state, or federal mandate for the Roundtable to exist. | ||||
The original purpose of the Roundtable was to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the 1980 Joint Land Use Study Final Technical Report. That report was a joint effort between the City and County of San Francisco and the County of San Mateo, regarding air quality, vehicular traffic, and aircraft noise issues related to the operation of the Airport. Air quality and vehicular traffic issues were already addressed on a regional scale by existing public agencies. No local public agency, however, was responsible for addressing aircraft noise. The Roundtable quickly focused all of its efforts on noise issues related to aircraft operations at SFO. It became and continues to be the only public forum in San Mateo County for local residents to express their concerns about SFO. | ||||
Local governments in San Mateo County are represented on the Roundtable by their elected officials (city council members and County Supervisors). The City and County of San Francisco representation on the Roundtable includes a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a representative of the Mayor’s Office, and a representative of the San Francisco Airport Commission (Airport Director). | ||||
The Roundtable monitors a performance-based aircraft noise mitigation program, interprets community concerns, and pursues additional feasible noise mitigation actions, through a cooperative sharing of authority among the airlines that serve the airport, FAA staff, Airport management staff, and local governments. The 22-member organization has been meeting on a regular basis since 1981 and continues to encourage public input related to aircraft noise from SFO operations. The 2010-2011 Grand Jury conducted an inquiry to determine if the Roundtable was effectively representing those San Mateo County residents being impacted by aircraft noise and vibration. This report responds to the findings and recommendations contained in the Grand Jury’s inquiry. | ||||
Acceptance of this report contributes to the Shared Vision 2025 outcome of a Collaborative Community by ensuring that all Grand Jury findings and recommendations are thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate County departments and that, when appropriate, process improvements are made to improve the quality and efficiency of services provided to the public and other agencies. | ||||
FISCAL IMPACT: | ||||
There is no Net County Cost associated with accepting this report. |
County Officials Need to Make Noise About Aircraft Noise |
Findings: |
Grand Jury Finding Number 1. There has been an increase in both total departures and night departures from SFO. Increased volume and changed flight patterns have had an adverse impact on some northern San Mateo County communities including Brisbane and parts of Daly City and South San Francisco. Some of the areas currently experiencing the most severe impacts either declined to participate or were deemed ineligible for the original noise insulation program. |
County Response: Partially Disagree |
Explanation: Staff agrees that there has been an increase in both total departures and night departures. However, staff does not have any evidence at this time that the flight patterns have changed. Southbound aircraft departures from SFO and Oakland International Airport fly over the northern portion of the county. According to the FAA, it has not changed its air traffic control procedures related to aircraft departures from either airport. The Roundtable is reviewing a large amount of flight track and noise measurement data collected by SFO to understand the scope and nature of the aircraft departure routes over the northern part of the county. The noise measurement data indicate that there are not severe or adverse aircraft noise impacts as defined by State and Federal aircraft noise standards in the northern part of the County. |
In response to the finding that some of the areas currently experiencing the most severe impacts either declined to participate or were deemed ineligible for the original noise insulation program, staff notes that portions of the Cities of Daly City and South San Francisco were eligible to participate in the federal noise insulation program, per federal eligibility criteria. A combined total of over 10,000 homes were insulated in those two cities. There is no portion of the City of Brisbane that meets the federal eligibility criteria for the insulation program. As noted above, staff is not aware of any evidence documenting “severe impacts” in these areas. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 2. Noise data collected by SFO and monitored by the SFO Roundtable address noise averages and do not focus on single events. No data is collected on individual night-time events, which can be the most distressing to residents. |
County Response: Wholly Disagree |
Explanation: The SFO aircraft noise monitoring system measures every single aircraft noise event, including nighttime noise events. That data is used to calculate and map the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) aircraft noise levels and noise contours, as required by the State of California Noise Regulations. The CNEL noise metric, in decibels, represents the average aircraft noise level over a 24-hour day. It is adjusted to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. State law requires every airport in California to measure aircraft noise with this 24-hour metric. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 3. The violation of noise standards by any aircraft is deemed a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of $1,000. Under California law, San Mateo County has the authority to impose fines and sanctions for violations of noise regulations established by the State of California, Division of Aeronautics. San Mateo County does not impose fines or sanctions on offending airlines as a matter of policy. |
County Response: Agree. Reconsideration of the policy regarding fines and sanctions is a matter that could be considered by the Roundtable as a whole. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 4. The State of California, which issues the airport operating permit, is not represented as an advisory member of the SFO Roundtable. |
County Response: Agree |
Grand Jury Finding Number 5. Reports received by the SFO Roundtable, prepared by the SFO Noise Abatement Office, are not easily accessible to the public on the website ( www.SFORoundtable.org). Information on the website was not current and a message stating that the website is “under construction” was displayed for the approximately one year duration of this investigation. |
County Response: Partially disagree |
Explanation: Information on the Roundtable website is easily accessible to the public. The information on the website is continually updated. A new Roundtable website will be operational in September 2011. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 6. The Roundtable membership does not include any individual residents, nor do they have any citizen representation on any subcommittees. |
County Response: Agree. Potential expansion of the Roundtable membership is a matter that can be considered by the Roundtable as a whole. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 7. The bylaws of the SFO Roundtable do not require that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson be elected representatives from the participating San Mateo County communities who are accountable to their constituencies. The current Chairperson of the SFO Roundtable is not an elected official. |
County Response: Agree. Potential revisions to the Roundtable bylaws can be considered by the Roundtable as a whole. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 8. The level of attendance by SFO Roundtable members varies widely and is declining overall. Daly City has withdrawn from membership entirely, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors representative has not appeared since February of 2009. The SFO Roundtable recently decided to reduce their meeting schedule from monthly to quarterly. |
County Response: Partially disagree |
Explanation: Staff disagrees with the portion of the finding regarding declining attendance. According to Roundtable attendance records, during the period from 2008 through 2009, Roundtable member attendance remained stable at about 70%. In 2010, there was a slight increase in attendance over the previous two years. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 9. Public participation at SFO Roundtable meetings is minimal. With one exception, all of the elected members of the SFO Roundtable and all of the residents interviewed stated that noise complaints were not a reliable source of feedback because people had either “given up” or did not believe that complaining was effective. |
County Response: Partially disagree |
Explanation: Staff agrees that noise complaints are not a reliable source of public feedback, but disagrees that a lack of complaints is a result of non-responsiveness by the Roundtable. Rather, it is the hope of County staff that the absence of significant complaints is indicative of the successful collaborative efforts of the Roundtable, the SFO Noise Abatement Office, SFO management, the FAA, and the airlines to pursue and implement safe and feasible noise mitigation actions. The matter of encouraging additional public participation is an issue that can be discussed by the Roundtable as a whole. |
Grand Jury Finding Number 10. Daly City withdrew as a member of the SFO Roundtable in 2010, citing budget restraints as the reason. Membership fees for 2010 were $750. |
County Response: Agree |
Recommendations: |
The 2010-2011 San Mateo Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors: |
1. Take an active role in revitalizing the SFO Roundtable to make sure that the interests of San Mateo County and its residents are fully represented, and that every effort is being made to mitigate the severe and increasing impacts of SFO airport expansion on San Mateo County residents. |
Response: |
The recommendation requires further analysis. The County was a founding member of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable and has been an active member since the Roundtable began meeting in 1981. Over the thirty-year history of the Roundtable, three County Supervisors have served as the Roundtable Chairperson. The County Representative on the Roundtable will continue to support the on-going airport noise mitigation efforts of the Roundtable. As one of many agencies participating on the Roundtable, the County has, and will continue to, work with the other member agencies to maximize the ability of the Roundtable to serve County residents. |
The Grand Jury recommends that the County Board of Supervisors and the member cities of the SFO Roundtable direct their representatives to take action that will: |
1. Ensure that the locations of noise measuring and tracking equipment parallel current departure flight paths. |
Response: |
The recommendation has been implemented. As a matter of County policy, individual supervisors who serve on committees such as the Roundtable do so independently, without specific policy direction from the Board of Supervisors. With regard to the location of noise measuring and tracking equipment, staff understands that the current locations of SFO noise monitoring system equipment effectively capture aircraft noise levels and accurately records aircraft flight paths in accordance with State regulations. Thus, no action by the County is necessary. |
2. Request the SFO Noise Abatement Office to deploy equipment to measure and track the intensity of structural vibration on departure flight paths. |
Response: |
The recommendation will not be implemented. Past research has shown that noise-induced vibrations from commercial aircraft operations do not cause structural damage. Due to the wide variety of flight paths, aircraft types, frequency of flights, and structure types, this recommendation has no practical purpose. |
3. Change the focus of required data collection and reports to ACTUAL noise measurements rather than COMPLAINTS from the residents about noise. |
Response: |
The recommendation will not be implemented. The data provided to the Roundtable, collected by the SFO Noise Monitoring System, includes actual noise measurements (single-event noise) and complaint data. Therefore, a change of focus of required data collection is not necessary. |
4. Increase the focus on single event noise violations and frequency, especially with night departures, rather than the 65dbCNEL which represents an average of noise experienced within a 24 hour period. |
Response: |
The recommendation will not be implemented. See response to Recommendation No. 3. Furthermore, as noted elsewhere in this report, the CNEL metric, in decibels, represents the average aircraft noise level over a 24-hour day with additional weightings for evening and nighttime events to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during those times. State law requires designated noise impact airports in California to measure aircraft noise with this 24-hour metric. |
5. Adapt the “Fly Quiet” Program to include sanctions as well as rewards based on single event violations, particularly with night departures. |
Response: |
The recommendation requires further analysis. Many years ago the Airport would send a Letter of Admonishment to those airlines that caused loud noise events. That approach turned out to cause severe ill will between the Airport and the airlines and the surrounding communities. |
Re-establishing these or other types of punitive sanctions is an approach that could be considered by the Roundtable as a whole, and cannot be dictated by the County. From the perspective of County staff, the Fly Quiet Program is a positive reinforcement effort by the Roundtable to publicly recognize the airlines for operating as quietly as possible to be a good neighbor to the surrounding communities. The Program began over 10 years ago and has been very successful. The addition of sanctions to the Program would totally change the character of the Program and would be counterproductive to its purpose. |
6. Create a sub-committee of the SFO Roundtable comprised of the elected representatives from the northern San Mateo County cities most impacted by aircraft departure noise to focus on mitigating the problems in those communities. |
Response: |
The recommendation requires further analysis. The suggested creation of such a subcommittee is a matter for the Roundtable to consider as a whole. From the perspective of County staff, this would be impractical from an operational and support standpoint. One of the strengths of the Roundtable is that it speaks with one voice and includes all of the noise stakeholders. The creation of geographically based subcommittees could diminish this quality. |
7. Modify the SFO Roundtable bylaws to require that both the Chair and Vice-Chair be elected officials from participating San Mateo County communities. |
Response: |
The recommendation requires further analysis. The suggested revision to the Bylaws is a matter for the Roundtable to consider as a whole. From the perspective of County staff, such a change is unnecessary and could be counter productive. |
The current selection process for the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson was established in 1981. The Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson are elected annually for a term of one year. Any Representative on the Roundtable is eligible to be nominated to serve as the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson. |
The recommendation would split the Roundtable into two groups, those who are eligible to serve as the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson and those who are not. This approach would be divisive and impractical, and would eliminate the current equal status of all of the Roundtable Representatives. |
8. Expand SFO Roundtable membership to include a representative from the State of California, Division of Aeronautics, to serve as a liaison. |
Response: |
The recommendation requires further analysis. The suggested revision to the Roundtable’s membership is a matter for the Roundtable to consider as a whole, and is largely dependent upon the Division of Aeronautics willingness and ability to participate. State budget issues, travel restrictions, and the potential for similar requests elsewhere in the State, cause staff to question the ability of the Division of Aeronautics to attend and participate in the Roundtable meetings on a regular basis. The Roundtable currently has the ability to request the Division of Aeronautics participation in a Regular Roundtable meeting whenever there is a need for the Division’s input. |