To: Moffett Community Advisory Committee
From: Walter Bays
Date: 16-February-1997

I am providing several documents for our February 24th meeting concerning the topic of land use compatibility. Specifically I am concerned that any commercial aviation, even a small amount that the community deemed compatible, could be the "foot in the door" opening Moffett up to ruinous large scale aviation. Any alternatives we consider should carefully address necessary safeguards to prevent this.

1. "The sky's the limit?", an article from the Natural Resource Defence Council newsletter [Summer, 1996], on conflicts between airports and communities nationwide, as both have expanded into now-overlapping spheres of influence.

2. Listing of FAA regulations [http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fars/]. The parts of most concern to us are part 150 , airport noise compatibility planning,part 151, federal aid to airports, and part 161, notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions.

3. The FAA Community and Environmental Needs Division [http://www.faa.gov/arp/app600/600home.htm] lists $1.7 billion of FAA grants to airports for noise compatibility projects under part 150. Also included is the table of contents for the "Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects" which specifies who qualifies and who does not qualify for soundproofing and buyouts when airports expand their noise contours.

4. A list of rulings by FAA regulators [http://www.faa.gov/arp/app600/14cfr161/161guid.htm] on proposals by local airport authorities to restrict operations at their airports to control noise. It seems that once a local authority takes money from the FAA for tower operations, improvements, safety facilities, or even for noise compatibility planning, then that authority loses local control over airport operations. The disturbing theme running through all these rulings is that of the FAA regulators insisting on wide-open airport use against the local community asking for noise reduction.

E.g., the state of Hawaii asked for the same phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft by the year 2000 that applies in the 48 contiguous states, and the FAA refused. Falcon Field airport asked for a curfew on light aircraft, and the FAA refused. Sonoma county offered to temporarily suspend its' noise ordinance during its' appeal of the FAA's ruling against it, but the FAA demanded that the ordinance be voided until such time as the FAA advised Sonoma that it might reinstate it. Ft. Lauderdale attempted to restrict Stage 2 aircraft based on a maximum decibel level (single event noise) rather than using the 24-hour noise averages, and the FAA advised that the restriction would be illegally discriminatory.

If the committee seriously considers any air operations involving FAA funding, I would like to hear them address these issues in person.

5. Articles from the California Pilots Association [http://aero.com/fbo/cpa/cpahp.htm]. I believe that some of their interests are totally in accord with the interests of homeowners, e.g. working against attempts by irresponsible real estate developers and local zoning authorities to build new non-compatible residential developments inside areas affected by airport noise. However, whenever a residential area expands into the airport noise zone or an airport noise zone expands into a residential area, then the CPA's interests come into conflict with those of homeowners. If local agencies have no authority due to FAR part 151, and the FAA is a strong proponent of aviation interests, then any potential for conflict between community and aviation interests concerns me greatly.

6. Excerpt from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Airport System Plan Update San Francisco Bay Area , 1994, [http://www.bts.gov/smart/cat/sfb.html], noting that 30% of all air traffic in the Bay Area is bound for Southern California, and estimating that high speed rail could largely obviate the need for airport expansion. You can get copies of this and other documents from the MTC at 510-464-7827.

7. Report from the California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission([>http://www.ns.net/users/bbrown/hsr.html) [Now http://www.cahighspeedrail.org/] on its study of European/ Japanese style trains linking San Diego, LA, Bakersfield, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Downtown San Francisco to downtown LA travel times as low as two hours could compare very favorably with air travel.