Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 164-1975 RESOLUTION NO. 164-75 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND PETITION FILED IN CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD DOCKET NO. 28347 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that: 1. The City Council being vitally interested in the safety, health and welfare of its citizens and residents and in the safety and efficiency of the National Air Transportation System, fully supports and endorses the petition of the Environmental Defense Fund in the proceeding brought by the Civil Aeronautics Board pertaining to the proposed entry of the current production-model Concorde Supersonic Transport into the United States (C.A.B. Docket No. 28347), as set forth in Appendix "A" attached hereto. 2. The City Clerk be and he is hereby authorized to immediately forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the following: (a) Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C. 20428, In Re: Petition of Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., for Amendments of Foreign Air Carrier Permits Held by British Airways Board and Compagnie Nationale Air France, to Forbid Use of Concorde SST (C.A.B. Docket No. 28347); (b) William C. Clarke, Esq., British Airways 245 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 (c) Roger A. Clark, Esq., (Attorney for Air France) Suite 900 1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 lo (d) John F. Hellegers Environmental Defense Fund 1525- 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20036 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of October , 1975. AYES, COUNCILMEN Richard A. Battaglia, Terry J. Mirri, Leo Padreddii I! NOES, ABSENT, " and Warren Steinkamp None F. Frank Mammini ATTEST: ~ City C1 erk . AERONAUTICS ENVI RONMENTiL IMPACT M. A. G. CONSULTANTS. INc. POST OFFICE BOX 948' S-,~N FI~.~.NCISCO, CALIFOI:~N'IA 94101 TELEPHONE ARF~A CODE 4~5 7~$~ - O871 October 16, 1975. APPENDIX A To Memorandum Re C.A.B. Docket No. 28347. Following are some, but not all, of the principal reasons which arouse cities adjacent to airports other than the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and the Dulles International Airport (IAD) and evoke their desire to be heard by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the public hearing proposed by the Environmental Defense Fund in its pending Petition (C.A.B. Docket No. 28347). 1. According to the "Noise Regulation Reporter," published by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., on September 28, 1975, a spokesman from the Department of Transportation told the Noise Regulation Reporter that Transportation Secretary William T. Coleman, Jr., does not favor a split decision admitting the Concorde into Dulles and denying it access into JFK International, and that Secretary Coleman's decision will involve all U.S. entry rights (our underscoring). Such a view apparently would affect airport's' in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as JFK. 2. Published information on recent noise measurements during takeoffs and landings of a Concorde aircraft (which is understood to be a prototype aircraft) at Casablanca, Morocco, suggests that the noise levels obtained from those measurements were in excess of those reported in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in March 1975. Reportedly, the Casablanca noise measurements are being included and evaluated in the Final E. I. S., but that final E.I.S. has not yet been issued , pending the decision by Secretary Coleman on whether or not to permit the production-model Concorde SST to land in New York and in Washington. 3. Information published on noise measurements during takeoffs and land- ings of One or more of the sixteen reported production-model Concorde aircraft in Australia, indicates that the noise levels produced by that aircraft were in excess of those obtained previously in Australia during takeoff and land- ing operations of a prototype Concorde aircraft. 4. Published information emanating from the Department of Trade of the United Kingdom regarding takeoff noise of Concorde aircraft measured at noise-monitoring stations at and in the environs of London (Heathrow) International Airport indicates a preponderance of noise levels in excess of the violation limits established for that airport. Details of that report are not yet available in California, but are expected within the next week. (continued) · '-l-'-'lll il II IV[. A. G. CONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIX A (continued) Page 2. 10/16/75. 5. An analytical evaluation report on noise-exposure levels produced by flight operations and airport operations of the Concorde aircraft reportedly is to be released by the Greater London Council (G. L. C.) on or about October 20, 1975. Its receipt by air mail is awaited directly upon its release by the G. L. C. 6. A memorandum dated May 2, 1.975, from the Chief, Planning Staff, EaStern Region, AEA-4, to Washington Headquarters, both of the Federal Aviation AdministratiOn, commenting on the FAA draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Concorde, raises significantly general questions~ that await response in the final E. I. S., which has not yet been issued. 7. Pursuing some of the general questions raised in the above-mentioned FAA Eastern Region memorandum, dated May 2, 1975, a letter of inquiry, dated September 30, 1975, was sent to the FAA Eastern Region by M.A.G. Consultants, Inc., Aviation Consultants in San Francisco. The letter sought information of the specific impacts of a Concorde operation on the air- space at and near other airports (Attachment 1). The letter inquired in particu- lar about the airspace near Dulles International Airport. The response sought is believed to be applicable to the extremely complex configuration of air-route airspace, terminal-radar-approach-control (TRACON) airspace, and tower- control airspace in the San Francisco Bay Area also. A letter of reply from the FAA Eastern Region, dated October 8,~ 1975, (Attachment 2) indicates that the inquiry by M.A,G, Consultants, Inc., has been forwarded to the FAA Eastern Region Air Traffic DiviSion,_ but no substantive response has as yet been received. It is submitted that an excessive airspace occupancy, by. a Concorde airplane, if such should be foUnd to occur upon thorough inquiry, could indUce substantial delays to ordinary, subsonic, air traffic in complex and crowded areas .of: the East,Coast and California air corridors. Such delays, in turn, could pr0duce"waste of fuel' and.noise-lmagnifying "bunching Up" of subsonic traffic .folloWing a Concorde ~-operation'and,~ hence, result in a degradation of ~he environment. or: risk to: health and safety of pe0ple on the ground. : 8. ~ The estimated 300,000-foot-long 90-EPNdB takeoff corridor ascribed to a production-type Concorde in Attachment 5 to the U.S. Department of Transportation Information. Brief, "Noise Characteristics of the Concorde/ TU-144 Supersonic Aircraft,''; TST-50 (December 1973), would impact.an area including one or more cities..in Ihe Central San Francisco.Bay Area. 'from any runway at.the San Francisco International Airport and the Oakland Airport. 9. Takeoffs from Runways 28-Left or 28-Right*(approximately 12% of all departures), followed by a so-called "Shoreline-departure" climb incorporating a .sharp turn to the right as soon as practicable after takeoff, to remain south of the eastern spur of Mount San Bruno, and takeoffs from *San Francisco International Airport. ~il T! II l~I. A. G. CONSULTANTS. INc. APPENDIX A (continued) Page 3. 10/16/75. Runways 19-Left and t9-Right, followed by a sharp turn to the left as soon as practicable after .takeoff, to remain northeast of the Coastal I-Iills, would require proof that the-. proposed. 26.5-degree ~ turn, by- which the proponents of the :ConCorde..operation propose, to; achieve noise' abatement: at, ~Kenned:y Airport, can. be: maneuvered, safets~ 4n tow-level- -climbingturns 'in-the turbUlent dowr~drafts prevailing at times-near the two mountainoUs obstacles adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport. 10. In the densely settled residential areas on both shores of the Central '-. San Francisco Bay Area, _relatively. tolerable, noise-exposure levels have been attained, through the unceasing co-operative efforts_of all those who are: concerned-With aircraft operations,_ ara substantial cost~to..airport manage- _.ment,~ air_-_Iraffic- control agencies, air~ .carriersy~ and int.~.restedl and construct.ively-minded_neighbor~cities(iOf the two ai.rpor, ts ~that .have runways 10,000 feet. long or longer. The mountainous terrain::in:that area, t'ogether with the "sound-box"-like meteorological conditions prevailing _most of the:. summer, ,render the area. esPeCiallY vulnerable io the :impact:-of. low-pitched high-energy noise that might be produced by the Concorde SST on takeoff'and Ianding,' The anticipated problem is not-only normally~audible- noise,: but the excitation of vibrations of structural-components and entire structures of dwellings and vibration-sensitive- commercial- and industrial buildings 'that'-is: of grave concern. 11. The confining meteorological conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area are conducive to a ready capture and retention of excess pollutants emitted and, hence, are especially sensitive to emissions by.a Concorde SST. 12. In summary, there are a number of anticipated technical environmental- impact problems, coupled with the potential prec~dent-establis..hing ~ weight of any decision now entertained by the C.A.B. regarding routes and airports covered under C.A.B. Order 74-4-17 (which'comprise Boston, Mass., New York, N.Y., Philadelphia, Pa., Baltimore,. Md., Washington, 'D. C., Chicago, Ill., and Detroit, Mich.), and under C;A'.B. Order 69-12-58 (which comprise Boston, Mass., New York, N.Y., Philadelphia, Pa., and Washington, D.C.), which motivate the filing of the present memorandum of support for the Petition of the Environmental Defense Fund in the matter of C.A.B. Docket No. 28347. 1ViAG:ef Respectfully submitted, Maurice A. . President M.A.G. Consultants, InC. AERONAUTICS ENYI RONMENTtL ll~PACT M. A. G. CONSULTANTS. INC. POST Oi~FlCl~- I~OX 94B S~I~T FI~.~_NCISCO, CALIFOP._~LA. 94101 TI~. LE pH OI~TE AI~ COD~- 7~2 - O871 September 30, 1975. Mr, Walter Kies, Planning Officer, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation AdminiStration,. Federal Bldg., John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430. Dear Mr. Kies: . It has .been.noted in the trade-journals-that you have, announced the completion of an airspace-occupancy analysis for ter-minal areas with regard to the current production-model Concorde Supersonic Transport (SST) aircra'ft. If this is correct, I should'very much appreciate receiving a copy of your analysis, including sufficient ancillary information to evaluate the technical background data on which the conslusions are based. Additionally, I wonder whether you have analyzed the specific ira. pacts', applicable to specific airports and areas, of any excess airspace-occupancy requirements by the Concorde SST ("excess" - over and above the requirements of large and aerodynamically clean subsonic aircraft). I am especially concerned over the possible impact of the Concorde SST, bOth in arrival descent and in departure climb to and from Dulles International Airport (IAD), on traffic within the jurisdiction of the Washington, D.C..Air Route Traffic Control Center. It could well be that the excess airspace requirements of a Concorde could affect significantly the "J" airways between New York and Miami and the northwest-to- southeast routes across the Washington area, and, perhaps worst of all, that they could impact adversely on the entire complex of important airports in the capital. area, beginning with the National Airport (DCA), and including Baltimore- Friendship, Andrews Air Force Base and, of course, IAD. If you have made any such study, I should be glad to peruse it. If not, I believe that it would be in the National interest that' ii'be undertaken as soon as practicable. I await -your early response with much anticipation. MAG:ef Very truly yours, · / Maurice A. Garbell President Attachment 1 to Appendix A DEPARTMENT oF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION October 8, 1975 EASTERN REGION FEDERAL BUILDING JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT JAMAICA. NEW YORK 11430 Mr. Mat=ice A. Garbell, President M.A.G. Consultants, · Inc. P. O. Box 948 San Francisco, California 94101 Dear Mr. Garbell: Your letter_ of September 30, 1975, is incorrect in-stating that I have completed an airspace occupancy analysis for terminal areas regarding the Concorde SST. The erroneous impression was probably created by an article published in the Washington Post which partially quotes a memorandum which was a comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Concorde. I shall forward a copy of your letter and this response to our Air-Traffic--Division,-which has resPonsibility for the airspace requirements for the. area in question. Thank you for your concern. Sincerely, WALTER D. KIES Chief~. Planning Staff Attachment 2 to Appendix A.