The Burlingame Voice

SFO Legal Action - Round 2 Summary

Voice readers can catch up on the effort by 49 Burlingame and Hillsborough residents to get some relief from SFO runway noise here and in the two prior links in that post.  The 49 plaintiffs have filed in Small Claims court and have presented their complaints in four sessions in Redwood City, so Tuesday was the airport's turn to present its defense.  We heard two and a half hours of testimony from an outside noise expert and an airport environmental planner that never really got to the root of the complaints-- that back blast or "run up" noise is damaging our quality of life-- mostly sleep, outdoor activities and doors and windows shaking.

One plaintiff started an on-line survey that now has 205 responses and found substantial concern around the clock.  15% of these residents are disturbed by SFO runway noise all day long and 58% disturbed during regular home hours of either 1-5 or 5-10 hours per day.  More than half of these families suffer between 6pm to midnight;  9pm-midnight is the worst and almost 30% suffer 12-5am and 30% also suffer from 5-8am.  The rest must have some pretty good sleeping pills......

SFO's defense hits on the following points:

• Various ordinances say they only need to mitigate noise where a 24-hour average called CNEL is above 65db.   That is a tight zone according to SFO's computer model and none of the 49 residences are in that very tight zone around each set of runways.  There appears to be minimal actual field measurements and no accounting for the 15-30 second blasts that are the essence of the complaints.
• The FAA, not SFO, controls all airline operations including taxiing and run-up (in contradiction to what some residents have been told elsewhere).
• Runways 1L and 1R were moved south by 450’ and 200’ respectively at around the time that people felt runway noise became worse, but the airport claims that is such a small distance that it has no noise effect.
• The runway safety project that added a "run away plane" section to the runway called EMAS at the ends of the runway has no noise effect.
• No form of noise barrier exists that would address our complaint as the noise source and the hearing parties need to be very close to the barrier (meaning a few yards not the one to five miles of the plaintiffs' homes).
• Prior legal action means anyone who bought their home after Feb 18, 1980 has no ability to file a claim.  This claim ignores the limits put on that ruling that make it inapplicable if airport traffic increases or configurations change--which they have over almost 40 years.

Oddly enough, the next witness to testify for the defense before we ran out of time Tuesday was the head of the Noise Abatement Center.  While the airport tried to slide through without him taking the stand, the judge insisted he at least take plaintiffs questions so he will return to court on June 11th at 9 am.

Here is the court house door with the plaintiffs' roll.

  

Living Next to 101 and SFO

I originally missed this big item on the Planning Commission agenda and in the Daily Journal piece.  

Burlingame officials praised the initial designs of a 265-unit, mixed-use project expected to be the first sizable development constructed in a newly-planned neighborhood.  Burlingame planning commissioners shared their support for the residential and commercial proposal by Summerhill Apartment Communities on the corner of Adrian Court and Adrian Road, according to video of the meeting Monday, May 13.

The project comprised of two, seven-story towers is likely to be the first housing development in the area around Rollins Road, where officials are seeking to build a new residential hub a short distance from the Millbrae train station.

For people (like me) steeped in the history of the telecommunications industry, One Adrian Ct. is an historic property being the first "Technical Operating Center" or TOC for the original SP Telecom network that grew out of the Southern Pacific railroad right of way and evolved into Sprint.  The microwave tower is still on site that provided the original transmission facilities that were later replaced by fiber optics.  More importantly, I have to wonder who is looking at the bigger picture.  The DJ goes on to note

Most of the feedback was similarly positive, but some maintained reservations. One nearby property owner said he feared the traffic and congestion likely invited by the development.

The initial design with 333 bedrooms includes 315 parking spaces so it is "under-parked" like most recent designs but that figure gives you some sense of the traffic from the residents.  You have to wonder what the impact will be on the very busy intersection that has the In-and-Out burger shack along with other traffic generators.  Another question that should be addressed is which elementary school will the kids go to?  Franklin or Lincoln?  The residents will also get a front-row seat to the runway noise from SFO--maybe this is the noise barrier the rest of us have been longing for?   Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

SFO Legal Action: Round 1 Summary

About 20 of us made the trek down to the Redwood City courthouse on Tuesday to present our case for damages against SFO airport (and by extension the city of SF who owns and operates it).  You can catch up on the background of this story here and here.

Over the course of two and a half hours in the morning and another couple hours in the afternoon, we presented the context for the complaint (delivered by the awesome Sally Meakin) and a number of simply heart-wrenching stories about how the runway noise has affected people.  We heard about visiting grandchildren waking up in the middle of the night thinking we had an earthquake, we heard about European friends who are reluctant to visit due to the noise and, for me, the most difficult one to listen to was the B'game woman who has decided NOT to have corrective hearing surgery in one ear so that she can sleep on the other side and actually sleep.  I felt so sorry for her, but it actually makes sense.

The judge asked one speaker for a specific example of how the noise affected her. Without hesitation, she described how when she goes out for a walk, other dog-walking neighbors are all wearing headphones to try to block out the noise. Later, when we got more details on SF’s defense dates, the speaker commented, “How can there be a defense? How do you defend something that’s ruining our lives?’

A motion-sensitive alarm device in someone’s driveway that’s worked without a problem for years is now triggered by the roar of the back blast.

We learned a few things along the way.  As we are in small claims court, the only thing Judge Cristina Mazzei can do is award monetary damages.  She cannot order SFO to do (or not do) anything.  Assigning an amount to each claim would be a bit of an art which is why we are asking for a uniform $2,500 each.  The airport will present its defense when all of us are finished.  At the morning break that was set for May 21st in the afternoon, but it is still a bit up in the air.  As I type this in the early afternoon of Mother's Day, the roar is on-going and I'm sure a number of families are choosing not to be outside when they normally would be enjoying a lovely day.

Airbnb Growth Continues

I know a couple of B'gamers who have successful Airbnb or VRBO hosts as neighbors.  For the most part, it works OK as long as there is enough parking and the noise is under control.  B'game is popular as a last-night-of-the-trip stay for people flying out of SFO; especially on those early morning flights we hear so often.  As Airbnb preps for its IPO, the size of the operation is slowing coming into view via its filings.  The Chronicle piece was mostly focused on the city, but it did include this tidbit of info that we can keep for future reference

Airbnb said it had 44 percent annual growth in guest arrivals in the five counties surrounding San Francisco, without specifying how that affected regional revenue.

I'm guessing B'game was at or above the five county average increase.  According to the B'game Urban Water Management Plan, residential use accounted for 59% of the potable water demand during the 2011-15 period.  Single-family was 41% and multi-family was 17% of the total demand.  Airbnb adds to this demand, but the question is by how much?  The other question is "Why not apply the transit occupancy tax (ToT) to these stays as well?  I'm sure the hotels would be in favor and there is a cost basis to do it.

SFO Runway Noise: Speier Townhall Update

Jackie Speier hosted a two-hour Townhall meeting at Skyline College on Tuesday night to address the issue of SFO airport noise.  It was very well-attended by about 500 people from around her district with a variety of concerns.  Panelists included a former United 747 captain currently on Speier's staff, airport director Ivar Satero and Peter Kirsch, an attorney known for successfully suing airports over noise issues.  For those of us who are embroiled in this issue, much of the agenda was review except for Kirsch's bit that gave a great 20 minute tutorial on the laws about noise.

One challenge with such meetings is one's concerns vary based on where one sits.  Pacifica residents have issues with overhead noise being more concentrated due to NextGen flight paths.  My assessment of their prospects for change/improvement is not hopeful.  Kirsch's legal review and insight left me with the impression that they just have to deal with it.  Similarly, the San Carlos and Menlo Park residents' issues with the San Carlos airport and Surf Air were a little out of scope for the meeting and shunted off to San Mateo County officials.

Finally, after about 90 minutes, during the Q&A, B'gamer Lynn Israelit from SFORunwayNoise.com was able to ask the burning question on behalf of the large Burlingame/Hillsborough contingent present-- "What about the noise from engine run-up and take-off?"  This should have been the main focus of the meeting since on-the-ground noise is solely the responsibility of the airport--not the FAA who were not present and have total authority over airborne noise.  We got some insight from Satero about two kinds of ground noise:  initial start-up noise and "start of roll" reflected noise.  Noise from the maintenance bays was not mentioned.  He also mentioned a study of ground noise from 2000 that was done.  The big news was that a new study has been commissioned to update the 18 year old study, but no timing was given.

The most encouraging part of the evening was the impression Jackie Speier left of being engaged on the runway noise concerns.  She was home (in Hillsborough) recovering from surgery over the summer and that meant she finally felt our pain.  Windows rattling, low frequency noise, loud noise, 3 am departures--the whole panoply of problems.  Now it remains to be seen if mustering her political pressure and legal pressure can result in some improvements in our quality of life and sleep.

Another Time, This Place

I don't want to push the misplaced Stop Sign post down from the top, but the Voice needs to stay fresh so here is a little "thought piece" that starts 69 years ago.  If you find it boring, just scroll down to comment on stop signs, scooters, wildfires, SFO runway noise, our lack of water security, BHS woes, empty stores on the Avenew, etc, etc.

I always loved Herb Caen's take on EssEff life.  In the '80s and '90s, I read him every day and twice on Sundays.  I also read and reread his books.  His 1949 classic, Baghdad by the Bay, starts off chapter 28 with this paragraph

San Francisco, brought to life by the lusty, gusty roars of the gold seekers, has never taken itself too seriously.  From the very start there has been life and laughter in Baghdad-by-the-Bay, with every citizen a potential comedian, every stuffed shirt the inevitable butt of a joke, every facet of the city's life wide open to the snide observation.

Herb would be so disappointed by the EssEff of 2018.  There are so many stuffed shirts strutting around SF that it is positively regressive--in a progressive sort of way.  The City is a mess and I am afraid the effluent will taint B'game even more than it already has.  It's bad enough that they control our water supply, let their airport disrupt our sleep and keep trying to make socialist rent control seem mainstream.  The November ballot will be packed with sneakily written propositions and innocent claims about dangerous initiatives.  Let's hope we can channel Herb Caen and keep our sense of humor and whatever the noun is that goes with "snide".

SFO Runway Noise Response

We noted the two runway noise meetings being held by local activists on June 21st here.  Both meetings went off as planned and offered a lot of information and a plan to hopefully force SFO and its owner, the City of San Francisco, to investigate what has changed for the worse since 2015 --and maybe even do something about it.  One of the things I learned at the meeting are that the noise limits that are in place are purely voluntary by the pilots and there are little if any penalties for not following the guidance.  Some airlines are known to be worse offenders than others.  The standard is more than 40 years old and does not account for high and low frequencies.  Also, back in 2011 the County Grand Jury found that the Airport Roundtable was experiencing "diminishing effectiveness".  Given that the Airport Roundtable is the one body that local politicians and city staff have for interacting officially with airport officials, that "diminishing effectiveness" is of great concern.  It hasn't improved in the last seven years!

The airport has reacted like any bureaucracy would in response to legal inquiries about noise.  In a case mentioned during the meeting, they responded with 118,000 pages of "documentation".  We know from a commenter here at the Voice that certain changes in "engineered arresting materials" have been implemented and may be partially the cause of the nerve-wracking noise that we hear far too often.  Just try to find it in 118,000 pages.

The Plan:  The three women behind SFORunwaynoise.com have come up with a plan of attack based on a similar civil action that took place in B'game decades ago and worked.  By getting many B'game and H'borough people to file small claims against the City of SF, which they will naturally deny, residents can build up enough of a record to go to Small Claims court en masse.  It's worth a try.

In the meantime you can enroll at Flightware.com to see which noisy plane is disrupting your afternoon conversation in the yard or your attempt to get to sleep at 1:30 am.  The list of 1:30 am departures is very enlightening (see below).  Is there any reason why three flights to Taiwan or two to Hong Kong cannot leave at a decent hour?  I can't think of one.  Here's the form to fill out to join the effort--get one by emailing SFOrunwaynoise@gmail.com.

CAL3	B77W	Taiwan Taoyuan Int'l (TPE)	01:51a PDT		05:16a CST
EVA27	B77W	Taiwan Taoyuan Int'l (TPE)	01:46a PDT		04:59a CST
CMP383	B738	Tocumen Int'l (PTY)	01:38a PDT		10:24a EST
TAI561	A320	El Salvador Int'l (SAL)	01:36a PDT		07:59a CST
EVA17	B77W	Taiwan Taoyuan Int'l (TPE)	01:32a PDT		04:44a CST
SIA1	B77W	Hong Kong Int'l (HKG)	01:28a PDT		05:31a HKT
FJI871	A332	Nadi Int'l (NAN)	01:20a PDT		07:01a +12
CPA873	B77W	Hong Kong Int'l (HKG)	01:16a PDT		05:47a HKT
UAL2364	B752	Newark Liberty Intl (EWR)	01:12a PDT		09:12a EDT
UAL9	B788	Chengdu Shuangliu Int'l (CTU)	01:09a PDT		05:18a CST
UAL1197	B738	Houston Bush Int'ctl (IAH)	01:08a PDT		06:36a CDT

SFO: A Chance to Speak Up

Here at the Voice we don't do a lot of pre-advertising for meetings or events, but big issues like the Lyon-Hoag traffic problems or SFO noise do prompt us to alert you all.  Here is your chance to speak up about SFO noise which has been bad the last couple of nights, again....

Come join a group of local Burlingame and Hillsborough residents at an informational meeting to discuss this issue and learn how we can address this problem. We will be holding 2 meetings at the Burlingame Public Library:

Thursday, June 21 at 11 AM and

Thursday, June 21 at 7 PM

Please RSVP to SFOrunwaynoise@gmail.com with the time that works best for you. We look forward to working together on a solution for all! Final meeting location details will be provided to folks who have RSVP'd.

Recall we addressed this with the SFOrunwaynoise team back in August of last year here.  You can remind yourselves of the state of the conversation before the June meetings.

Blood Moon Over B'game

I set my alarm for 5:20 am this morning and went outside to a beautiful clear sky cradling the Super Blue Blood Moon high in the western sky.  It was really something to see and just as interesting an hour and a half later as the eclipse waned and the outline of the full moon was visible, but the brightly lit portion looked just like a normal half moon.  Neither my phone nor my camera did it justice, so I have plucked the Phoenix New Times photo that I think shows the best view to share here.  The middle blood moon was at 5:20 am and the second from the left at 6:45am.

More to the local angle was the noise level at 5:20 am.  The first southbound Caltrain rolls through B'game at 5:22 and the first northbound one rolls through B'game at 5:32.  Gates drop, signals clang, horns sound for longer than really seems necessary.  Several commenters have mentioned the San Mateo pols who travelled to DC to try to get some rail horn relief and expressed their hope that B'game would add its voice to the chorus.  The airport noise is quite loud even on a clear day and you can read up on that problem here.  I remain opposed to 5 am aircraft departures, but that is apparently another thing that needs a major rule change.  I'm not sure when Recology starts picking up trash and recycling, but it sounded like it was before 5:20 am which also seems too early.  Russ has covered the onset of construction noise starting promptly at 8 am here.  The point is B'game could be quieter if we keep demanding that it be.

SFO: Louder and More Often

I recently had a good talk with a neighbor about the noise emanating from SFO.  Sally Meakin has gone to a lot of effort to get informed and to rally the locals to do something about the noise.  My main concern has been about the noise in the middle of the night and we discussed a curfew here.  Sally is taking a more holistic approach to noise at all times of the day and night.  She believes it has gotten worse lately and that has spurred her to action.  She has attended several Airport Roundtable meeting and toured the SFO Noise Center (that might not be the exact name).  She believes that SFO is not well-equipped to determine which airlines, which planes and which patterns cause the worst noise.  I also believe many residents have stopped complaining to SFO because it really doesn't do any good.

Sally has created a website to address the problems and a possible course of action.  You can visit sforunwaynoise.com for a lot of background material.  She has researched what B'gamers did many years ago to get concessions from SFO and thinks a similar approach may work again.  It involves people filing small claims en masse against San Francisco (which owns SFO).  I agree with her--the noise has become a public nuisance and I also believe it is hurting people's health and energy levels and possibly their driving safety.  Sally has also made up lawn signs which are available from the website.

We have a new Voice category-- SFO Airport-- that is long overdue.  Go Sally, Go.