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.