The Hayward City Council's Airport Committee met April 23, 1998 to review the "evaluation of the performance-based [aircraft] noise ordinance" for 1997 by the Hayward Air Terminal manager. The following critique of the evaluation was submitted by Howard Beckman, a resident of San Lorenzo.

TO:Hayward City Council Airport Committee
FROM: Howard Beckman
SUBJECT: 1997 Annual Noise Evaluation for Hayward Air Terminal

I have reviewed the annual evaluations of the city's aircraft noise ordinance prepared by the Hayward Air Terminal staff for 1996 and 1997 (version available March 25, 1998). These reports raise questions of public policy and airport management practice that the committee should address immediately.

The Annual Report and Public Accountability

The airport's annual evaluation of airport noise to the City is titled an "evaluation of [the] performance-based noise ordinance". There does not appear to be any other formal regular report on management of aircraft noise at the airport, and thus it is fair to conclude that airport management and the city have narrowed the official view of noise problems at the airport to exceedances of the noise limits established in the ordinance.

At the March 25th meeting of the Hayward Airport Noise Monitor Committee, Brent Shiner said: "We regard a noise complaint as an exceedance of the [City of Hayward] ordinance" and that addressing other complaints is "something we do for community relations but not something we have to do."

In addition to monitoring the noise created by departing aircraft, airport management has established a number of measures to minimize the impact of aircraft noise on the nearby residential population, including a preferred take-off route to avoid homes and rules regarding time and place of engine maintenance "run-ups".

Mr. Shiner's comment quoted above explicitly says that complaints about aircraft noise are not "valid" if they do not correlate with an exceedance of the noise limits in the ordinance. Thus, a complaint that correlates with an exempt exceedance, e.g., an exceedance created by a medical emergency flight, would not be a "valid" complaint. A complaint about prolonged noise that does not exceed the limits in the ordinance would not be a "valid" complaint. A complaint about noise in the middle of the night that does not exceed the limits in the ordinance would not be a "valid" complaint. A complaint about a noisy, low-flying aircraft over one's home would not be a "valid" complaint if the noise recorded at the airport's monitors did not exceed the limits in the ordinance.

Presumably, a "valid" complaint concerns noise for which the airport is accountable to the public, i.e., a complaint to which the airport must respond. Under this view the only noise mitigation procedure for which the airport is accountable is enforcement of the noise limits in the ordinance. All other measures by the airport are "public relations" efforts for which the airport is not officially accountable to the public, either to the people of Hayward, who own the airport, or the people living in areas directly affected by airport operations.

Thus, once each year an Airport Noise Monitor Committee, appointed by the airport manager, hears the airport's "evaluation of the performance-based noise ordinance." This committee does not meet otherwise. Once each year the Hayward City Council Airport Committee receives the "evaluation of the performance-based noise ordinance" along with public comment. There appears to be no other regular public review of noise problems at the airport beyond this narrow definition of the problem.

Exceedances versus Violations of the Noise Ordinance

The 1997 report (page 6) states that there has been a "decrease in actual exceedances." While this may be true, the report does not state that there has been an increase in the number of violations.

In 1996 there were a total of 143 exceedances of the ordinance. Of these, 136 were created by exempt aircraft (121 lifeguard or stage-3 aircraft; 7 commercial jets landing at Oakland; 2 ATC instructional flights; and 6 military aircraft). Thus, in 1996 there were 7 valid exceedances resulting in 5 violations by 3 different aircraft.

In 1997 there were a total of 103 exceedances, 40 less than in 1996. The number of exceedances due to exempt aircraft was 74 (67 lifeguard or stage-3 aircraft; 2 commercial jets landing in Oakland; 4 ATC instructional flights; and 1 military aircraft). Thus, in 1997 there were 29 valid exceedances resulting in 25 violations by 15 different aircraft, 10 of which were based at Hayward Airport.

In sum, the number of violations increased fourfold, while the number of aircraft responsible for violations increased fivefold.

Characterization of Noise Complaints

The thrust of the annual evaluation of the noise ordinance for 1997 is to write off noise complaints that do not correlate with violations of the ordinance, i.e., exceedances of the noise limits by aircraft that are not exempt from the ordinance. Much attention is given to the fact that a single person complained 330 times during the year and that only one of these complaints correlated with an exceedance. Common sense would dictate that such atypical behavior be eliminated as "outlier" data, and in fact this has been done in a bar chart comparing 1997 complaints to previous years (exhibit 3). When the 330 complaints from a single person are eliminated, the number of complaints is 0.11% of total flights, compared to 0.09% for 1996 and 1995.

This is a very modest increase. Although complaints in 1997 came from more households than in 1996, the number of complaints per household in 1997 is actually less than in the previous two years, if the 330 complaints from a single person are eliminated:

For this reason, and for reasons discussed above ("Exceedances versus Violations of the Ordinance"), the section of the 1997 annual report "Increase in Noise Complaints vs. Decrease of Actual Exceedances" is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize the complaints over aircraft noise at the airport.

Complaints are an expression of annoyance. The fact that a complaint does not correlate with a violation of the aircraft noise ordinance does not make the annoyance less "valid". Instead, the time-honored test for deciding whether conduct constitutes a nuisance is whether it unreasonably interferes with the quiet enjoyment of property.

Ordinary people cannot be left guessing whether the noise they experience represents an exceedance of certain decible limits. The number of complaints, the nature of the complaints, the areas from which complaints are made, the number of complaints per household, and the number of households complaining are all important factors in determining to what extent aircraft noise is a public problem.

Immediate Issues Not Covered by the Annual Report

Because of the nature of the annual report, the report does not address noisy airport operations that concern neighboring residents. In particular, helicopter operations at the airport have, during the past year, become especially annoying. On Jan. 12, 1998 I faxed to Brent Shiner and Mayor Cooper a complaint about helicopter touch-and-go flights. On Sunday, Jan. 11, a helicopter belonging to CalStar began touch-and-go flights at 10 in the morning and continued nonstop until 5 p.m. This same helcopter was engaged in touch-and-go flying each day thereafter through the following Saturday -- seven straight days in which nearby residents had to put up with the persistent fluttering of helicopter blades. On Jan. 14 this helicopter did not cease flying until 6:55 p.m.

The fact that CalStar is a medical emergency service does not lessen the nuisance to nearby residents. The answer to this problem is not that the particular helicopter is "exempt" from noise controls by the airport. Instead, the question is whether helicopter operations are at all appropriate at the Hayward Airport if the unique noise impacts of these aircraft cannot be mitigated to accomodate the right of nearby residents to a peaceful life. Helicopters approaching or taking off from Hayward Airport routinely fly over homes adjacent to the airport, outside the traffic pattern established by the airport to mitigate noise.

In addition, the vast majority of propeller aircraft taking off from the airport do not follow the "preferred" take-off pattern of turning away before reaching San Lorenzo Village homes. Clearly, the "preferred" pattern, perhaps the most important component of the airport's plan to reduce noise impacts on residences, does not work. Whether this is because it is in fact impractical for most pilots to turn or because pilots are not obligated to obey the pattern is something that requires investigation. The annual noise report from airport management, limited as it is to evaluating the city's aircraft noise ordinance, does not address this type of problem.

Recommendations

The City of Hayward should immediately create a mechanism by which those directly affected by noise from the Hayward Air Terminal can regularly and frequently raise issues of airport operations that, in the view of residents, create unreasonable noise. This mechanism should be in addition to and independent of the process for revising the airport's master plan, even if it overlaps with that process. The mechanism should create accountability by airport management to neighboring residents by providing for regular appeal by residents to the city council in the event that residents conclude, in good faith and based on a thorough study, that particular airport operations unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their homes.