The Burlingame Voice

SFO Runway Noise: My Recording Results Are In

The results from the airport noise monitoring station that SFO installed in my very own yard for two weeks have come back.  You can see the equipment and some of the background here.  The monitoring was continuous around-the-clock, but I also kept track of 15 incidents that I found to be disturbing and gave them to the Airport Noise Abatement Office (ANAO).  They kindly correlated these incidents with specific flights and their parameters.

Without getting into too much technical detail about A-weighted vs C-weighted (for low frequency sound) or the peak noise level of an event (Lmax) or the Sound Exposure Level that compresses the noise energy into one second, the measurements show:

The monitoring site at the Burlingame Park Neighborhood is relatively quiet with ambient noise levels of 48dBA, considering that most of the neighborhood is in an urban community setting. On an average day, there were 229 overflights, out of which 65 exceeded the noise monitor threshold and recorded a noise event. These events included departing aircraft engine start, ground idling, take-off thrust and initial climb thrust. Runways 01-Left and 01-Right departing aircraft accounted for the vast majority of the noise events recorded by the monitor.

The majority of SFO Aircraft noise events occurred between 12:00 am and 2:00 am, 5:00 am and 8:00 am and 5:00 pm through 11:59 pm. On average, there were 26 nighttime noise events during the duration of the monitoring session.

For this measurement the average aircraft generated Maximum Noise Level (LCmax) was 73dBC and the average Sound Exposure Level (LCE) was 83dBC.

The 15 events I flagged to the ANAO were mostly between 11 pm and 1:30 am since rousing myself to send myself a text to capture the exact time wasn't advisable around 3 am when some really bad events occur.  Two examples of the correlation are:

11:02 pm: A Qantas Airways’ Boeing 747-400, Flight QFA074 to Sydney, Australia, started its takeoff roll on runway 28L at 11:01:35 pm. The LMax was 68.7 dB, the SEL was 76.2 dB and the event was 42 seconds long.   (28L is one of the two the long runways that takes planes over Brisbane).

11:50 pm: An American Airlines’ Airbus A321, Flight AAL2902 to Charlotte started its takeoff roll on Runway 1R at 11:50 pm. The LMax was 65.1 dB, the SEL was 77.1 dB and the event was 40 seconds long.  (Runway 1R is the southern short runway that is closest to Burlingame at its origin).

As part of our on-going legal action that has yielded a partial "win" as described here, one of the challenges we have is convincing a judge that "substantial changes" in airport operations have occurred.  If that can be shown, then the idea that only people who have owned their homes since before 1980 can claim damages becomes invalid.  So I read with some interest the SF Chronicle article from Sept. 13 about pilots transposing the runway numbers that they punch into their computers that then determine from the runway length how fast to get airborne.  It's a fascinating and somewhat scary read, but the part that might shed some light on our run-up and back-blast concerns is

By registering runway 10L instead of 01L, the pilot made the computer system think it had 4,220 feet more runway than it actually had, investigators found. Runway 10L is 11,870 feet long; 01L is 7,650 feet. The computer alerted the captain to use the lowest thrust and flap settings, common for longer runways to reduce impact and wear on engines, the memo stated.

It resulted in a “takeoff with 400 feet of usable takeoff distance remaining,” the FAA memo concluded. A typical commercial airliner is traveling at 184 mph at liftoff, meaning the plane had about 1.5 seconds before reaching the end of the SFO runway.

After the incident, the airline reconfigured its planes’ computer systems, such as removing the slowest takeoff speed as an option at SFO.

That seems like a relevant change to highlight to the judge--which we will do as Round 2 of the complaints take place in Redwood City on November 5th.

SFO Legal Action: Part 4 - A Split Decision

Many of the remaining 39 plaintiffs gathered in Small Claims court in Redwood City this morning to hear Judge Cristina Mazzei's ruling on our claims against SFO for runway noise.  You can read the background here.  The judge went the extra mile to render her decision live instead of the usual notice-by-mail.  We will have the full text of her ruling later, but I was scribbling madly so I could give you the main points.  I'll update it when I have all of the details.

As she started to speak about how the runway, back blast noise was "clearly bothersome" but also "known at the time of the purchase of the homes" I prepared for a denial of our claims.  When she noted that the airport operations were mostly the same over time (i.e. no new runways or flight patterns) that sense was heightened.  She noted that we had not provided expert testimony that operations had changed which is true.  She then reviewed the results of several prior lawsuits at other airports concluding that Civil Code 3482 was "not a total defense" for the City of San Francisco and SFO.  Her review of 49 USC 47506 "Limitations on recovering damages for noise" reminded everyone of the city's defense that anyone who purchased their home after 1980 was precluded from collecting damages unless certain conditions are met.  Many of us have thought at least a couple of the conditions had been met, but she apparently disagreed.

In a split decision, the judge awarded damages as requested ($2,500 each) to nine plaintiffs who bought their houses before 1980 and denied the rest.  It took awhile to digest the split decision as the team met afterwards.  It seems a bit contradictory to me (and the team) as the judge appears to say that there is a continuing nuisance, it's damaging to the enjoyment of people's property, SFO is liable for this damage, but only if someone has owned their home for 40 years or more.  As I said, many of us thought conditions had changed to obviate the 1980 limit.  Once we have the full text and get some legal advice (something we have not done, but the City of SF clearly has done), we will hopefully be better positioned for Round 2 of claims.  That will start soon.  In the meantime, we wait to see if SF appeals the decision or decides that $22,500 is a small enough amount to let the sleepless dogs lie.  I will also have more detailed information from the monitor I had for three weeks.

SFO Runway Noise: My Own Monitor

For the next two weeks I have my very own SFO-provided noise monitor in my yard.  You will recall that I accepted the offer during my meeting with the team at the Noise Abatement office.  The team installed it last Friday and I am looking forward to the specific measurements and the human correlation with flights that this stream of data enables.  This past Tuesday night was particularly bad and, lo and behold, last night was pretty quiet.  The noise abatement team attributes the differences to the weather - warm temps and clear skies are good, colder temps or cloudy skies are bad for noise.  If that proves true then the question becomes how to modify airport operations accordingly.  Operations change due to weather all the time, so perhaps this input can be accommodated as well.

Here is the microphone and the computer case that is recording a steady stream of noise data.  The thresholds to filter what to analyze have been set at 57 dB from 7am to 10pm and 52 dB in the nighttime.  In the meantime, the waiting for the verdict continues.

I also got a great tip from the SFO team about a free app called Flightradar24 that quickly pinpoints your location, maps all of the planes (on the ground and in the air) and allows you to see the flight information for each icon.  It's very cool to know where the plane over your house came from or is going.


 

Time for a Sit-down With Uber and Lyft

CBS Local News has a piece about Uber and Lyft drivers jamming our streets in B'game and Millbrae. The two mayors are asking for a sit-down "to resolve it".  I'm not sure how one goes about that but it's a great idea.  If you have seen the line-up near Millbrae Ave. on any mid-morning it's long--more than 50 cars when I went over last week to meet with SFO noise officials (two posts down).  It's also odd that EssEff hasn't objected since they have disallowed local cabs from queuing up with city cabs for years.  So short of disallowing Uber and Lyft I'm not sure what can be done.   I'm also not sure what can be done about them parking all over downtown and side streets idling while they wait for the next hail.

SFO Legal Action - Gathering Data and Ideas

I spent two and a half hours at the SFO Noise Abatement Office as a follow-up to the questions I asked at the last Court session about noise data.  My host, David Ong, was very helpful-- cordial, informative and curious to hear about my concerns.  One couldn't ask for more at this point in the proceedings.  We discussed the arrival and departure routes at length, using their system to graph sets of data for specific dates and windows of time including my least favorite-12 am to 4 am.  It turns out that late night departures are not predominantly Asian flights or cargo, but often head to Chicago, Detroit, etc to make early morning connections.  We reviewed the timing around the Runway Safety project that added a new runway surface at the ends of the north-south runways and noted when they reopened August 10, 2014 as you can see from the graph below with the green V-shaped departures reappearing on 1L and 1R.  One theory is after a summer without traffic on those runways the reopening may have sounded louder to residents.  I can't really agree with as a cause of our distress now simply because it was five years ago, but I'm sure it had some short-term effect in 2014.

We also discussed how the international terminal Gate G which has a lot of Boeing 777 "heavy" traffic is situated such that engine-start-up is pointed towards B'game.  If it is determined that 777 start-up is a notable cause of noise, there might be other locations that would work.  I was particularly interested in the noise we experienced on Mother's Day this year.  It was quite bad in my yard, but the peak noise measurements at the two North B'game monitoring stations didn't really show what I know I heard.  SFO has awarded a contract to replace the 15 year old noise monitors with new technology and one can only hope that 15 years of technical advancement brings as much improvement in microphones as it has in other products.  I will be getting a short-term noise monitor installed in my yard in July with better noise correlation that is done by a person using the actual recordings as opposed to the system algorithm and NOAA radar data about take-offs.  It should be interesting although I am under no illusion that it will fix anything other than my curiosity.

Mr. Ong puts a lot of hope on the Airport Roundtable's ground noise subcommittee being able to isolate the main cause(s) of the runway noise so that something innovative can be done to mitigate it.  I hate to conclude with "we shall see", but that is where we're at.

 

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.

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.