SFO Legal Action - Round 3 Summary

The plaintiffs and the defendant (the City of SF) wrapped up their arguments about SFO runway noise in Small Claims court on Tuesday.  You can catch up on the background here and here.  It's quite impressive to see so many residents apply their skills to adding to the complaint.  We had members of the plaintiff group provide detailed noise measurements showing noise as high as 84.7 dB, providing background on the legal cases from around the country that might apply, and offering survey results from 360 people showing that the 49 current plaintiffs are far from the only ones feeling the damage from back blast noise.

At the end of Round 2 the defense tried to avoid having the Noise Abatement Office systems manager even take the stand, but Judge Mazzei ruled that we should be able to ask questions of him about his written declaration and the operations of the Office.  Mr. David Ong was on the stand for about 90 minutes and we learned some interesting, if disappointing, things during that time.  The Noise Abatement office takes about 200,000 complaints (they call them "reports") per month.  That effectively blew a giant hole in their argument that the 49 plaintiffs are just a small group that is not representative of the rest of the Millbrae, B'game and H'borough populace.  The illogic seemed lost on the SFO representatives.

We also learned that the airports Fly Quiet program that has been in effect for 15+ years rates airlines on five criteria that do not include back blast noise and that some of the lower scoring airlines, like Quantas, have been low scoring for a long time and SFO expects them to continue scoring low.  There are small fines in place for when a pilot does a "run-up" in an unapproved area of the taxiways, but Mr. Ong did not know if any fines had been assessed, nor whether they are published to groups like the Community Roundtable (which B'game councilmember Ricardo Ortiz sits on).  He also did not know what happens if an airline does not pay the fine or if there are other actions that merit fines.  We all found that quite odd for a senior member of the Noise Abatement Office.

There are 29 permanent noise monitoring stations sprinkled in the three cities and San Mateo.  They have been there for decades and Mr. Ong believes they do not show any appreciable increase in noise over the last three or four years (a key part of our claim).  I have asked to see the actual data since the group finds that hard to believe given the increased traffic and our collective experiences.  We will see if the data corroborates that, if we ever get it.

As the session came to an end, the judge said she would ordinarily have the Court mail us the verdict in a week or two, but she will be doing it differently for this case. She said she was allowed 90 days to announce her verdict once the case was under submission.  She has "a lot to read over". Then she said we'd all be getting a notice of when her decision would be announced in court with so the plaintiffs could be present.  Lots of people are sitting with their fingers crossed.

Comments

[Sally Meakin]

Hi, joe. Nice work. sforunwaynoise.com has been overhauled for easier reading. I’d like to add a Joe section. OK with you?

[Joe]

I'm not sure what a "Joe section" is but I trust you so go ahead. If you just want to link to the SFO Airport category link on the right hand side, you will always get the latest post on top.

[Barking Dog]

Joe...I am old enough to know when to eat my words...

200k a month is a huge number and obviously can't be ignored.

While the noise doesn't bother me or my family, it's more than obvious it bothers more than the 49 plaintiffs....

[tedyun]

This is a very bizarre claim from Ong, and the data that is publicly available from SFO Noise Abatement department directly shows an increase over the last few years.

In 2015, there was an average of about 1400 significant noise exceedances per month. At the end of 2018, the number averaged around 2000 per month.

That is data that his department published! So he was either lying, or he was referring to "alternative facts." Notice he prefaced the statement with he "believes" there was no increase.

"...Mr. Ong believes they do not show any appreciable increase in noise over the last three or four years..."

[Joe]

Good for you, Barking Dog. I was blown away by the number especially since making a complaint is completely pointless. I gave up years ago since they don't actually do anything about it. Yet the complaints keep rolling in. Go figure.

Ted, when you have a moment would you post the link to the data you refer to? I have emailed SFO rep Chris Roach to remind him of my request.

[BillyGBob]

Did SFO mention how many individuals were responsible for those 200,000 monthly calls or the annual calls? The vast majority of airport noise complaints are typically from a very small number of individuals who may complain hundreds (or thousands) of times per year. Furthermore, the availability of auto-reporting 3rd party complaint apps just makes it easier for those few to magnify their opinion. So, a more representative metric of the issue is the number of unique households that complain over a given period.

From what I can tell from the SFO noise report records (https://data.sfgov.org/Transportation/Aircraft-Noise-Complaint-Data/q3xd-hfi8), the monthly calls are typically from around 1,400 individuals...which means the average caller is making 140 calls each month. The data don't indicate unique callers across the year, but I imagine that most of the callers month-to-month are the same individuals. What this all means is that while the number of calls may be increasing, they still represent a miniscule share of the population. For example, in 2018, the highest number of individual callers from Burlingame during a given month was 37. Even accounting for (a) each caller may represent a unique household (and thus, multiple people), (b) not everyone in town is aware of how one files a SFO noise complaint, and (c) not everyone who may think to file a complaint bothers to do so (or may think it’s a waste of time), that’s still a very small portion of the population.

I’m not saying that there isn’t an issue, but focusing on the total complaint volume can be extremely misleading.

[Joe]

You are also correct BGB. I think it was either 1400 or 1700 "reporters" and the average caught my eye as well. Your a) thru c) are also correct in my opinion, with b and c being very important aspects that lower the complaint levels. All true and indicative of a problem that goes beyond 49 or 360 people (who took the survey).

[[email protected]]

Holy Cow!
What has happened to the "Entertainment " that this "ol'e website" Rumors, Arguments, Conspiracy Theories, used to provide. What are the latest City Hall Cut Throat Political Positions?

Trump or Biden?

City of Burlingame Infrastructure...

What a Mess.
Long gone are the days of "Burlingame RFD."
As a Community in Silicon Valley where an 800 square foot "Home" costs 1.9 Million, the need for Educated "Elders" is the Foundation of our Community.
When it is time to vote again, please consider the FACT that The City of Burlingame needs Financial and Compassionate highly educated representatives' of the People.

Why has the Current City of Burlingame Manager been allowed to "mismanage" everything?
Every City of Burlingame Elder has NO BUSINESS managing a Multi- Million Dollar Corporation.

[[email protected]]

One more very important FACT!
Any City of Burlingame Citizen/Renter that runs for Any Political Office should be paid a Minimum of $100,000.00 per year. If WE-City of Burlingame begin to run our City as a Corporation instead of a "Safe Place." Money can be made. Community Development, Education, Investment.

[hillsider]

CVS must have run out of holyroller's meds.

[Peter Garrison]

World domination and cheese.

[Joe]

Newsflash: We have a date for the judge to render her opinion - next Tuesday, Aug. 27th at 9 am.

[JP]

Hope it all goes your way because it is really LOUD out there right now.