Northern Hills Homeowner's Association

Transcript of Presentation

March 2, 2000

March 2, 2000 Presentation to City Council

MR. BRISENO: The first item on the agenda today is a brief on the Noise Compatibility Study, and Kevin Doherty will be here to take that up.

MAYOR PEAK: Kevin

KEVIN DOHERTY: OK, Good morning. Basically, it’s noted that this is a presentation on the department 150 noise compatibility study. The purpose of the session this morning is to brief you on the nature of the noise impacts on the airport, give technical background, show findings of the analysis, then present the recommended noise compatibility program. Also, we’d like to receive your approval today to proceed with public meetings and refine a program for submission to the FAA. Today’s approval - I’d like to let you know – wouldn’t be final approval of the program, it would be your nod that we are moving in the right direction with recommendations that will be made, and you are releasing us basically to further develop it, get recommendations, then get back to you for final approval. The project schedule consists of two more public workshops, on April 4th and 5th, then a formal public hearing in May, then we’ll finalize a report that based on feedback from the general public through the public workshops and the public hearings will finalize the report and bring it back to you in June for final approval. Then with your approval in June this will be submitted to the FAA for their approval. Now the FAA, when they receive the proposed department 150 proposed noise compatibility program, they will review it from the perspective of looking at environmental issues, procedural issues, safety issues, and issues of capacity at the airport. They have 180 days to review the noise exposure maps – those newest noise exposure maps developed as a result of this study. There is no time limit on their approval of the program. They will give it a thorough review and then give us approval or disapproval of the whole program or certain components of the program.

After their approval we can implement the diminishes contained in the noise compatibility plan, and we’ll be eligible for items contained in the program, up to 80 percent FAA funding.

The critical elements of the study – which public participation required technical expertise to very technical issues to deal with, required the expertise of experts in this field. It’s involvement of the public and all other affected parties to reach balanced recommendations. That’s recommendations both in abatement measures and in mitigation measures in the program.

Participants in the program. First, the technical advisory committee which was formed to specifically provide input for the study, consistent with requirements of FAR Part 150. As you move through, or as you approve to do a Part 150 study, one of the requirement is that you form a committee of this nature to participate in the process. There is a listing there (which I won’t take through) of the membership on the committee. It’s quite, quite broad. Involved neighborhood residents, neighborhoods surrounding the airport, the FAA, their airline representatives. Pretty, pretty broad references-representation on the committee. We also had visitors that were, were invited, and, and participated or attended each of the TAC committee meetings.

That next slide shows a map. The dots on that slide depict the neighborhood where citizens on the TAC committee were pulled from to form a portion of the TAC committee. Again, a good representaion of the, of the neighborhoods surrounding the aiport. Also, the noise abatement advisory committee was involved in the extent that that committee was briefed as to the rest of the study. It’s a long standing committee that was formed as a result of the previous part 150 that was done here in 1990, uh and again, the membership, I won’t take you all of that but as you can see the membership and the makeup of the committee. That committee reviewed proposals and agreed to bring the program to the council for further consideration.

Study Considerations: Recognized the existence of noise exposure issues around the Airport. They examined all options based on study team ideas and input, including all proposals received from the TAC
(That’s the Technical Advisory Committee). Uh, and those options and proposals were analyzed based on technical expertise, part of the consultant, their knowledge of other airports, their understanding of local conditions, and recognizing that what works here uh, may not necessarily work at another airport, and vice versa – what works at other airports doesn’t necessarily work at San Antonio. Uh then they developed recommended measures that can be implemented as a result of the study. Uh. again, it was a balanced approach. Uh, the goal was to insure there was some form of noise abatement implemented. Uh, invited participation from all interested parties. Uh and recommended measures that reduced noise in noise-sensitive areas without moving noise to – to other noise-sensitive areas- uh but maintain airport capacity and that don’t compromise safety of the travelling public.

Uh, there’s other noise initiatives ongoing. Uh you are all familiar with the ground run-up enclosure, which we expect to begin construction on this summer. The residential sound insulation pilot program, which is currently in design, uh and should be completed by August. And both of these- uh both of these initiatives are being paid for in part by federal funds.

History of San Antonio Noise Compatibility Efforts. Uh the previous FAR Part 150 Study, uh which I noted was done in 1990 uh was approved by the City Council in 1990 and the FAA on October 8, 1991.
Uh, the City to this point uh has spent $12.6 million dollars for noise projects, of which 9.7million came from the FAA.

These are some of the projects that the uh the funds have paid for. Sound insulation completed on noise sensitive public buildings, 19 churches, 10 schools, 1 library, 2 nursing homes and uh of course the sound insulation pilot program that I just mentioned. Uh, also, the ground run-up enclosure is included in this funding, and the current Part 150 study update.

Uh, with this, uh mention the technical expertise that was required, which to conduct the study. As a result of having that meeting we engaged the firm of Ricando and Associates to complete the study. The program manager was John Williams. Uh, and I will bring him up to present the program.

John Williams continues...

JOHN WILLIAMS: Thank you Kevin. Uh I want to start with defining “What is a Part 150 Study?” It’s an airport noise compatibility study. It’s a mechanism by which, uhm all affecting parties can come together to try to reach a program that will best make, make the operations of the airport compatible with it’s neighbors. It’s a voluntary program in the sense that airport operators are not required to conduct Part 150 studies. Uh, it is a program that is provided by the FAA to assess and quantify the aircraft noise exposure in the airport environment. Now all of us would define airport noise exposure in different ways, but when you conduct at study like this, there has to be some mechanism for quantifying and assessing that. Ah, we also look at measures to reduce that noise exposure, most commonly referred to as “noise abatement measures”, and then “noise mitigation measures” – to try to lessen the effects of noise in those areas where there still is significant noise exposure. Finally, it outlines a program for implementing, and then monitoring the implementation of a program to improve the noise situation. The very important function is that this – the FAA Far Part 150 Program is the only mechanism by which an airport sponsor can become eligible to receive federal funds to implement noise abatement and noise mitigation measures. It is a very important source of funding for those types of programs.

As Kevin mentioned, there was a FAR Part 150 prepared back in 1990. Uhm, what were the reasons for updating that? Uhm, it is important to update that to reflect the changes in airport-aircraft operations and the fleet mix and land uses around the airport. Uh, one of the big changes in the fleet mix has occurred because of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. It required the phase-out of the louder uh part 36-stage 2 aircraft, in favor of the part 36-stage 3 aircraft. Now this only applies to the aircraft that weigh more than 75,000 pounds. Uhm, and at the same time the aircraft were becoming quieter, there was a restriction placed on airport operators and their ability to restrict aircraft operations. Uhm, the good news is that the airport now is served exclusively by stage 3 aircraft – by the larger air carrier aircraft. Uh, we’re not saying that this is the panacea, and this is the answer, but it’s important to reflect that in our analysis.

Another important reason for updating the study is to continue to recognize the airport noise issues. There are a lot of different people that are exposed by - exposed to noise around the airport. A large population historically continues to be exposed to the aircraft noise at levels which we consider to be significant by federal standards. Residential neighborhoods are located near the airport. Some long-standing, mature neighborhoods to the south and southeast. Some of the newer neighborhoods to the north and northeast of the airport, as well as northwest. Uh, and certainly the frequency of aircraft overflights is a concern for airport neighbors. The noise levels of individual aircraft operations, as well as the cumulative noise of those aircraft operations. Both Jet Aircraft and Turbo-prop, propeller driven aircraft, create noise exposure and a nuisance in areas around the airport. Of specific concern can be some of the nighttime early morning departures. They are typically associated with air cargo operations.

The study process is, is quite long and technical. Beginning with a large data collection effort that included measuring noise levels in the field from actual aircraft operations. Collecting radar data from the FAA to determine where the aircraft fly. Determining which runways are being used. Also to establish and develop a thorough land use map that depicts land use around the airport, and how they are developed. The next step is to try to define that noise exposure. Uhm, Part 150, although it was a voluntary program, has very specific guidelines that a sponsor must follow once they choose to conduct such a study. And we’ve had to, uh, to use the models and the techniques required by the FAA to quantify the noise exposure in the airport environments. Next is to look at and evaluate, identify different alternatives. First of all, again to reduce the noise exposure in noise sensitive areas. That’s the goal. To try to reduce that level to the best extent possible. And then in those areas where noise levels would still be significant, look for means for mitigating or reducing the effect of that noise. And then finally develop the noise compatibility program that would be submitted to the FAA for approval and thereby the elements becoming eligible for federal funding. Throughout the process, public participation is a very important element. Kevin mentioned earlier the Technical Advisory Committee, public workshops, that were conducted back in September, uhm, working with the noise abatement advisory committee. We’ve had several neighborhood meetings, uhm, and upcoming will be another set of public workshops in a form of public hearings. The goal is to try to obtain as much input from all those who are effected, not only by the operations of the airport, but those that are operating at the airport, and whose operations are effected by the different programs that may be put in place.
First of all, on the assessment of noise exposure. As I mentioned, noise exposure is something that each of us will feel differently and we will have different reactions to. Uhm, but it does, but our FAA does require that noise exposure maps be prepared to quantify or define the areas that would be considered exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Uh, the FAA defines this as those areas exposed to DNL (or Day-Night Average Sound Level) 65 and higher uhm, as exposed to significant noise. The DNL metric is a cumulative metric of all aircraft operations over a 24 hour – the average 24 hour day. And it applies a 10 decible, or in effect a 10 times weighting penalty to those operations that occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a. m.
So it’s a mechanism by which the attempt is to again quantify noise exposure in areas around the airport, considering both the single event levels of individual operations, the number of operations, and the time that they occur.

Again, uhm in accordance with FAA Part 150 regulations we looked at noise exposure in 1998, which was the last calendar year for which we have a full set of data since the study was initiated. And then to look forward into 2004 and see what noise exposure would be like in that year, a five year look-ahead. What we found is that since the completion of the last study, the overall noise exposure or the overall area exposed to DNL 65 and higher has decreased. Uhm, this is primarily due to the phase-out of the louder aircraft from the fleet mix. There is still some loud aircraft out there, but for the most part, those have been phased out of the fleet. Uh, we’ve seen some reduced impacts in the southeast, some greater impacts to the north of the airport as runway use patterns have changed, uh, and shifted to a certain extent from the southeast to the northeast direction. Uh, one other important point that we need to make is that actual runway use statistics differ significantly from flow configurations. I know a lot of the airport neighbors, in that they have asked us to, to present to you that uh, the airport designates itself as being in a certain flow condition, and about 80 percent of the time it’s being designated as being in a “southeast flow”. Now, during southeast flow, departures can occur to the southeast, as well as to the northeast. So that doesn’t necessarily mean that during that whole time all of the aircraft will depart to the southeast. But again, that flow designation is about 80 percent of the time to the southeast.

The next few maps. This map depicts 1998 noise exposure. The blue line – the larger of the blue lines around the airport is DNL 65. All the areas inside that would be considered exposed to considerable air traffic noise. The noise sensitive areas would include residential areas, churches, schools, hospitals, etcetera. Those types of uses that would not be compatible with higher levels of aircraft noise. Now to talk a little bit about the noise, and a comparison of how noise has changed, the next map is a combination of the 1993 and the 1998 noise exposure. And as you see, to the southeast, there has been a reduction in the size of the area exposed to. At that time the shortcut for day-night in in common was Ldn – that is now considered DNL. They do mean the same, though. It has decreased some to the southeast, but as I mentioned, we do see some increase in the northeast of the airport.

The next map is a depiction of what noise exposure would be expected to look like in 2004. Now, one thing I would mention is that when these noise maps were prepared – again we were looking at 1998 – and 2004. In ’98 there was still some of the louder stage 2 aircraft in the mix. In 2004, although there are anticipated to be a higher level of operations – a higher number of operations – because more of those would be by the quieter aircraft, the overall noise exposure is expected to decrease.

We looked at a variety of measures then for noise abatement. Noise abatement departure procedures. How can we make each individual aircraft operation, particularly departures, quieter? The FAA has developed, and the airlines have adopted two standard noise abatement departure profiles that can be used, uh to reduce again the noise levels of each individual aircraft’s departure. What we found is that even though these have been implemented in a lot of different airports, local conditions are very important in determining their effectiveness. So a lot of testing is the most efficient means, rather than the very expensive modeling process to assess the noise benefits of these departure procedures for San Antonio.

We also looked at physical changes in the airport. In the master plan that we completed in the mid 1990’s there were recommendations for several runway improvements in San Antonio International Airport. We looked at how those could assist – or how those could be a part of the noise abatement program. But beyond that we did not see any physical changes in the airport that would really be feasible to further reduce noise exposure.

We’ve also looked at flight track changes. How could we

We’ve also looked at flight track changes. How could we have the aircraft depart from the airport, arrive at the airport and follow corridors that are more compatible with aircraft over-flights? If you are familiar with land use around the airport, there really aren’t a lot of areas that aren’t developed in some form of noise sensitive use. Some areas, for example Los Angeles – has an ocean to the west – here in San Antonio we don’t have that luxury. So we’re working with the developed areas surrounding the airport. So we’re looking for corridors that were developed in uses that were not noise-sensitive, and we tried to identify where the aircraft could fly.
Also, looking at runway use changes, there is a preferential runway use program that was proposed by members of the technical advisory committee that would minimize the departures to the southeast, and arrivals to the southeast. That area being one of the older neighborhoods around the airport, and one that is effected very heavily by noise exposure. When we prepared that analysis, we assumed that the master plan runway improvements would be in place, so we could take advantage of some of the uh –some of the advantages that those improvements would provide.
It’s hard to really boil down the assessment of these measures in the four bullets. But to try to present the information to you as best we could, and in a timely way, the runway use changes alone – in other words the preferential runway use program, although it reduced noise in noise sensitive areas significantly in some areas, it also increases noise very significantly in other noise sensitive areas. The flight track changes alone also would reduce noise in some areas off of some runway ends, but off of other runway ends would simply redistribute that noise to other noise sensitive areas. Some of the flight track changes also had a significant effect on the reduction on airport capacity and/or airspace interactions. If you are familiar with the – the different air facilities that are in the San Antonio area, International Airport is not the only airport, or the only air facility, and it’s important to insure that operations at the different air facilities can be compatible once the aircraft are in the air. Of important note is that mandatory programs cannot be implemented without prior environmental study and approval by the FAA. So we wanted to make sure that our program – in assessing these different programs – we identified the mechanisms by which these would need to be implemented.
In terms of noise abatement, we really came up with and worked very closely with the technical advisory committee to develop a set of combined measures. Look at combinations of runway use changes and flight tracks to maximize the benefit in terms of reducing noise exposure in noise sensitive areas, and minimizing the adverse effects – or minimizing increases in noise in other noise sensitive areas. You know, the ideal solution would be to maximize that noise reduction benefit without any adverse effects on operations, without significant increases in noise exposures – noise exposure in other noise sensitive areas, and without incurring significant cost. Given that the ideal solution maybe even is not achievable, the resulting recommendations should – and do – reflect the most reasonable compromise.
What we developed is – in terms of runway use and flight track changes – a combination of the preferential runway use program and the use of the departure corridor to the northeast, primarily for runway 03 departures. I’ll ask you – actually, if we can move ahead to the next slide, I’m gonna refer back to the text here.
What this map depicts – the blue line – or the blue lines depict noise exposure expected in 2004, with a combination of two things. A runway – preferential runway use program – which, again minimizes departures to the southeast, minimizes arrivals from the southeast, and then moves those departures that would occur to the northeast to follow more compatible land uses to the northeast of wetmore road, along the cement plant – in that area. The black dashed line represents the 2004 baseline contours, so you can see the comparison of how noise exposure would change. So you see that there are benefits in terms of reduction of noise exposure to the southeast primarily assosciated with just - the reduction in the number of overflights. Uhm, and then also reductions to the northeast in addition – or on the one hand there would be more operations occurring to the northeast – on the other hand by placing those – having those fly east of Wetmore Road, uh would reduce noise exposure in noise sensitive areas northeast of the airport. Now it’s very important, and an element that is very key to this is that the turns from runway 3, or up to the northeast, those that cause the contour to take the jog a bit to the northeast put the aircraft from San Antonio International Airport into a situation of higher potential conflict with operations at Randolf Air Force Base. That will be very important for the FAA to review this procedure. It may be that for actual implementation that not all aircraft will be able to follow that type of a turn. But to the extent that especially the louder aircraft – the aircraft that have been “hush-kitted” and just barely meet the stage three quieter noise standard can be routed along that corridor – will prevent the increases in those exposures significantly to the northeast of the airport. Therefore this combination was chosen (if you will) as, as a measure to be included in the Part 150 program going forward for review.
Overall the recommended noise compatibility program will include both noise abatement and noise mitigation measures. I want to stress that our first goal was to reduce noise exposure to the extent that we could. Abate that noise. Try to move the noise away from noise sensitive areas. And then in those areas where noise could not be eliminated look for ways to mitigate or to reduce the effects of that noise. The program has been recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee. I’d like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of the members of that group. In – we’ve estimated in about 30 hours alone of meeting time – uhm as well as work that they’ve done on their own throughout this process, over the last year. The Noise Abatement Advisory Committee reviewed and agreed to bring this recommended program forward to you, the City Council. After the public process, and the City Council actions, the final program will be documented, and forwarded to the FAA for it’s review – and approval.
The summary of the noise abatement issues that we are looking at again is to conduct a live test with the different noise abatement departure profiles, to see which ones provide the most benefit around San Antonio International Airport. One other key is that different procedures from different runway ends may be more effective. There’s a precedent where one departure procedure is used from one runway end at an airport and another is used at another runway end of an airport. So it will be important for us to see which one provides the best benefit from all the runway ends here in San Antonio. And then pursue additional voluntary measures – noise departure procedures to further reduce noise levels. Uhm, we had representation from airlines on our technical advisory committee.

Reaction by City Council

Council Comments:

Mr. Baanwolf: First of all, I want to congratulate Mr. Carpenter for his leadership on this issue. Not only did he grab that tiger by the tail, but he tamed it. So congratulations, David. I want to thank staff, the consultants, the Technical Advisory Committee for their efforts and the number of hours that they spent on this Part 150 study. And I want to thank Judy and Bill Sullivan for their persistence in this area – I visited with them again this week – as I have many times – and thanks for bringing this issue forward, and for staying on top of it. I apprecieate it. And the commitment the two of you have made in this effort.
And I also support David’s position, and in fact, I’m glad to see my colleagues have expressed an interest in doing some short term measures apart from this longer term effort to reduce noise at the airport. And you can show your support in a tangible way this morning by signing the six signature memo that Councilman Carpenter and I are circulating. Uh, to do a couple of things including to look at that departure profile Kevin has talked about to get that aircraft off the runway, off the ground faster and steeper, to get them up higher and quicker. So, so there is a greater distance between the aircraft and the ground, and where the residents are living. Because this is certainly a quality of life issue now. It’s also, as the Mayor has pointed out, an economic development issue, and we are trying to balance the two. Certainly I think the study is a good step. We’ll have to stay on top of it, persist, don’t let it slide, and visit with the FAA about that turn to the right – coming off the preferred runway – to be sure there are no conflicts there. I’ve been told by the pilots that there won’t be and we should be O.K. We need to clarify that with the FAA and pursue that and get –certainly them - to sign off on that and we can implement the plan. I think it’s a good one. It has my undivided support, and those of us on the council who want to do something about noise can certainly join councilman Carpenter and myself on this memo that will help the staff do some additional measures that we think can help in the short term before all these recommendations begin. Thank you Kevin.

Mayor Peak: Thanks Kevin.
Kevin: Thanks Mayor. But I would also like to add my congratulations to Councilman Carpenter on his leadership on this matter. By the way, where’d that Tiger bite you?
LAUGHTER
Councilman Carpenter: That’s O.K., I’ll show it to you later.
Kevin: If it’s any consolation, we’ve all been bitten before. --- more ----

Mayor Peak: Alex and Kevin, I think you have a clearer view of what Council support for what has been proposed, but also for our emphasis on moving forward on a parallel but faster track to do whatever we can do locally without having to go through the FAA procedures. We can, you know, a couple of things that prevail on the top of my head were the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging it. And let’s stop letting things happen out there that are gonna come back and create problems like the next District 10’s Councilman’s. And those are things that I don’t think require FAA approval. Uhm, so whether it’s uhm no more building in an area or, uh and/or uh real estate notification or whatever it is, let’s do as much as we can locally and as fast as we can while pursuing the more involved and lengthy FAA process. You know, a motion to all that effect.
UNKNOWN: So moved.
UNKNOWN: Second.
MAYOR PEAK: And to everybody else- Oh, all those in favor? OK?
VOICES: OK
MAYOR PEAK: And to all those who came today, and particularly the activists – I see Phil, Bill, Judy, and others – Ewell from a long time ago, Ida. Thanks very much for your efforts. Those who were on the committee, stay with others, sticking with us, and of course the staff. We’ve got a way to go yet, but I really do think we are making good progress with this. So thanks very much. We’ve got another presentation in just a few minutes, so would you all leave quietly, we can give our second presentation.

END OF TAPE.






Did you know?
You can save the map image to you computer then use your graphics viewer program to get a close up of how unfair the makeup of the TAC was.
Even better - make it your "Windows wallpaper" to remind you of how unfair this commitee has been.

Committee makeup:
5 members southeast of loop 410.
1 member South of the Airport
3 members are northwest - in direct line with the runway.
Only 1 member is North of the airport - and that member is from Stoneridge.
NORTHERN HILLS IS NOT REPRESENTED!
How can this be a fair committee?
Of course it was easy for them to decide to send the noise "over Capitol Cement".
They just forgot to tell everyone that Northern Hills was on the other side of the cement plant. I wonder why?

How would anyone in Northern Hills know that a Noise compatibiltiy workshop concerned them? We have never been defined as a "noise sensitive" area.

We've always heard the planes as they pass over Eden, now imagine them DIRECTLY overhead! Phone conversations will be interrupted. Concentration on homework will wane during flyovers. Pets will be scared. The air will contain jet exhaust fumes.
Read what comes out of these engines by going to the "Hot Links" Section and reading the study on Jet emmissions. Click on "What's that Jet emmitting, anyway?"

Residents of Northern Hills and the surrounding communtiy, we have been bamboozled!
If this plan is passed, 125 flights will come overhead every day. If it does not come over Northern Hills, it will come over Stone Ridge, Oak Ridge Village and Eden.

If City Council proves that they still need to reduce noise, they can get funding from the FAA for "improvements". This is a ploy to get Federal Money.
If the FAA will finance 80% of the improvements, think how many people will profit.
Everyone but those 1722 homes in Northern Hills, a few shopping centers, some apartements, a retirement home, and a couple of apartement buildings. But that's OK for them. "It's the price of progress."

As soon as I can transcribe the rest of this presentation I will post it.

John Penry

Stop this Plan to Redistribute Aircraft Noise to Northern Hills.

Email us
jpenry@stic.net