AIRPORT NOISE ADVISORY PANEL (ANAP) 4th Quarter, December 7, :30 P.M. FINAL MINUTES

Transcription

1 AIRPORT NOISE ADVISORY PANEL (ANAP) 4th Quarter, December 7, :30 P.M. FINAL MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Airport Board of Trustees Airport Board of Trustees Washoe County Department of Comprehensive Planning City of Reno Community Development City of Sparks Citizen Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada Fixed Base Operators Fixed Base Operators Washoe County Citizen FAA Flight Standards District Office RTIA Airlines Representative Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency FAA/Air Traffic Manager RENO-TAHOE AIRPORT AUTHORITY STAFF: Executive Vice President/COO Manager of Planning and GIS Manager of Airport Noise Program Noise Analyst Senior Airport Planner Capital Improvements & Grant Coordinator MEMBERS ABSENT: Nevada Air National Guard Fixed Base Operators Washoe County Citizen FAA Airport Traffic Control Division City of Reno Citizen Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority The Chamber, Reno Sparks Northern Nevada City of Sparks Community Development VACANT SEATS: City of Reno Citizen (2) City of Sparks (2) Washoe County (1) Air Cargo Representative General Aviation Representative Jenifer Rose, Chairwoman Jessica Sferrazza, Vice Chairwoman Chad Giesinger Nathan Gilbert George Graham Frank Lepori Chad Morris Tiffany Morris Yvonne Murphy Lee Oscar Capt. Jon Proehl Sienna Reid Karl Scribner Dean Schultz Dan Bartholomew Trish Tucker Rick Miller Lissa Butterfield Faith Allen Capt. Erik Brown Trent Brownlee Allayne Donnelly-Everett David Ellsworth Glenn Graves Brian Rivers Lisa Ruggerio Jim Rundle PUBLIC ATTENDEES: Leah Sanders David Shocket

2 CALL TO ORDER The Airport Noise Advisory Panel (ANAP) met in the River Room in the Main Terminal of the Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Reno, Nevada. Chairwoman Jenifer Rose called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT Leah Sanders, a resident of the San Rafael area of Reno, Nevada, made public comment. Ms. Sanders is concerned about the increase in air traffic in her area. There are frequent early morning flights 5:45-7:30 a.m. that go over her neighborhood. There are also many frequent flights during the 10:45 p.m.-midnight timeframe. She would like to see the flights spread out over the valley instead of being concentrated to one area. Ms. Sanders expressed her appreciation to Mr. Rick Miller, RTAA Noise Analyst, for the time and effort he expended to address her concerns. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Karl Scribner, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Jessica Sferrazza, and the Panel approved the minutes from the 3rd Quarter meeting of September 24, 2015 with no changes. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF 2016 MEETING SCHEDULE Motion was made by Vice Chairwoman Jessica Sferrazza, seconded by Yvonne Murphy, and the Panel approved a 2016 meeting schedule. The meeting schedule for the 2016 calendar year is as follows: Monday March 21, 2016 Monday June 20, 2016 Monday September 19, 2016 Monday December 5, 2016 These meetings will be held at 3:30 p.m. in the River Room of the Main Terminal Building unless otherwise agreed. QUARTERLY REPORTS: Rick Miller, Noise Analyst, presented the quarterly reports to the Panel. SCHEDULED DAILY DEPARTURES The following flight schedule changes have occurred since June 2015: July (63) United Airlines added one (1) non-stop flight to Denver, CO. United Airlines discontinued two (2) non-stop flights to San Francisco, CA. August (62) Southwest Airlines discontinued one (1) Saturday only, non-stop flight to Chicago-Midway, IL. US Airways discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Phoenix, AZ. American Airlines added one (1) non-stop flight to Phoenix, AZ. Page 2

3 September (57) American Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Chicago- O Hare, IL. United Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Denver, CO. United discontinued one (1) weekend only, non-stop service to Houston, TX. Southwest Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Las Vegas, NV. Delta Air Lines discontinued one (1) Saturday only, non-stop service to Minneapolis, MN. October (53) American Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Dallas, TX. United Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Denver, CO. American Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Los Angeles, CA. Alaska Airlines discontinued one (1) seasonal non-stop flight to Seattle, WA. November (53) Alaska Airlines added one (1) non-stop service to Boise, ID. Southwest Airlines discontinued one (1) seasonal non-stop service to Chicago, IL Midway). Alaska Airlines added one (1) non-stop flight to Portland, OR. American Airlines discontinued one (1) non-stop flight to Phoenix, AZ. Scheduled daily passenger airline departures in November have returned to 2012 levels. New service to Orange County on Alaska Airlines will begin in March, 2016 and new service to Oakland on Southwest Airlines will begin in June CARGO ACTIVITY, RUNWAY USE & NOISE COMPLAINTS There have been no significant changes to the air cargo schedule since the last quarterly update. However, there may be a few shifts in the 4 th quarter due to typical seasonal increase in packages during the holiday rush. Staff reported a recent up gauge in aircraft. FedEx is using DC 10s but will be phasing those out in the next two years. Also, UPS has recently revised its contract with Amazon to increase the amount of cargo being shipped. In regard to aircraft runway usage, wind direction determines which runways are used, as the aircraft take-off and land into the wind. The runway usage for the 3rd quarter was impacted by the construction work being done on Taxiway C. The construction work caused a change in runway usage, increasing north flow to over 56 percent from its typical average of 20 to 25 percent. The construction work is currently intermittent, based on weather conditions. It is anticipated to be completed by the end of January Staff presented the noise complaints from the 3rd quarter of 2015 (July, August and September). These numbers were higher than the past couple of years. Staff believes that the Taxiway C project contributed to this increase. The total number of noise complaints for 3rd quarter 2015 numbered 356, with 57 complaints in July, 160 in August, and 139 in September. In regards to location, the distribution of the complaints did change due to the increase in the number of north flow flights. The largest percentage of noise complaints came from the Huffaker area and were from one individual. The 174 Huffaker complaints represented 48.9 percent of the quarterly total. The number of calls from the Northeast Reno area has increased. The 96 Northeast Reno complaints represented 27.0 percent of the quarterly total. The Other area also had an increase in complaints primarily due to the increase in north flow traffic. The Other area had 42 complaints, which represented 11.8 percent of the quarterly total. The Virginia City Highlands had 24 complaints, which represented 6.7 percent of the quarterly total. The South Hills area had 12 complaints, which represented 3.4 percent of the quarterly total. Page 3

4 The Virginia Foothills area had 6 complaints, which represented 1.7 percent of the quarterly total. The Stead and Mt. Rose Highway areas had 1 complaint each, which represented 0.3 percent, respectively. There were no complaints from the Donner Springs, Double Diamond, Smithridge or Sparks areas. These 356 complaints came from a total of 10 locations (households) with a majority originating from one household. The majority of complaints came from an individual who lives south of a major runway and were due to the north flow arrivals. Complaints have increased and are expected to continue into the new year due to the construction that is taking place. Most callers have been understanding when given an explanation as to why there are more flights over a given area than in the past, due to this construction. Typically most callers complain when there is something that is outside of what is normal for them. No significant changes in operations occurred in the third quarter. Daily commercial airline operations for the 3rd quarter averaged 108 (arrival and departure total). The daily cargo operations averaged 12 (arrival and departure total). Of the 356 total noise complaints, 74 percent referred to flights occurring during daytime hours and 26 percent referred to flights occurring during nighttime hours. Commercial airline carriers had 80 percent of their operations occur during the daytime hours and air cargo carriers had 69 percent of their operations occur during the daytime hours. (Daytime operations are defined as between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., while nighttime operations are defined as between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) There is a correlation between the number of operations and the number of complaints. The number of complaints versus the number of operations was greatest between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. with a spike of complaints around the noon hour. One of this quarter s noise complaints was a call that staff received through a media inquiry. It came from KRNV s Ask Joe segment. Staff shared the audio for the Panel. The call came from the Rolling Hills/Galena area. The News 4 coverage was balanced, informative, and accurate, reporting that there is no defined path following Virginia Street that pilots are required to use. Pilots exercise discretion to determine the safest route that aligns them with the runway as quickly as possible pending varying weather conditions. Chairwoman Rose asked about who would have given the caller inaccurate information about the flight path following Virginia Street. Staff did not have a definite answer it could have come from realtors, neighbors, etc. Chair Rose feels that the realtors and developers should be giving accurate information to the public. Chairwoman Rose asked how well we were disseminating the website information. Staff explained that the airport s website contains information for the public regarding aircraft noise and flight paths. The website also contains links to WebTrak which has aircraft overflight/complaint input information. However, some members of the public, such as the homeowner in the Huffaker Hills area, would rather phone in their complaints as opposed to filing them electronically through the website. Ms. Sanders indicated that the WebTrak information was easy to find as one of the links is on the front page of the website. Page 4

5 AIRPORT AUTHORITY STAFF ITEMS Staff did not have any for this meeting. NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS PRESENTATIONS Trish Tucker introduced Chad Giesinger, Washoe County Senior Planner, who provided a presentation on the residential development approval process in unincorporated Washoe County. Nathan Gilbert, City of Reno Associate Planner, and Sienna Reid, Senior Planner with Truckee Meadows Regional Planning, were also in attendance. Mr. Giesinger gave a brief overview of the state law (NRS ), which empowers cities and counties to regulate and restrict the improvement of land and to control the location and soundness of structures. (Planners deal primarily with the land itself and the building officials deal with the structures.) The statute provides for a number of tools that can be used by planners. These tools include: regional planning, master plans, neighborhood plans, specific plans, zoning, ordinances and subdivision regulations, building code/permits and health/safety regulations. Washoe County is subject to Regional Planning requirements per NRS The Regional Plan sets forth the generally desired regional form and pattern for development (i.e. location, density, infrastructure, etc.). All of the local entities have representatives on the Regional Planning Board. The local government master plans must conform to the adopted Regional Plan. Once the master plans are adopted then zoning comes into play. The zoning has to be consistent with the master plans. The building permits must conform to zoning. Zoning must be consistent with the broader master plan categories (i.e. residential commercial, industrial, etc.). In the refined districts specific densities and land use regulations (i.e. setbacks, structure heights, etc.) are set. These must conform to what the master plans allow. (Within the cities there are areas that allow for mixed use.) Once residential zoning is established for an area, subdivision maps and/or building permits can be processed. Mr. Giesinger pointed out that some residential zoning districts do not require a subdivision map to create development potential (i.e. multi-family). They can go straight into the project review process. However, some of those types of projects may require a special use permit. Mr. Giesinger explained the difference between Discretionary Approvals versus Administrative Approvals, noting that Discretionary Approvals are land use approvals that must be approved by a board or commission in a public hearing setting and have some type of noticing requirement. There is a more stringent review process for Discretionary Approvals. Review is required by different and more agencies. They are required for master plan amendments, zoning map amendments, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), tentative subdivision maps and large multifamily projects. These type of approvals can have conditions of approval attached to them. For example, if there was a project that has a noise specific issue, a condition of approval could be placed on it requiring it to meet certain acoustical standards. Conversely, Administrative Approvals are normally done at the staff level. These are primarily building permits. There is certain criteria that must be met and if a project meets that criteria, then the project can be approved administratively. No conditions of approval or noticing are required. Page 5

6 Each jurisdiction adopts its own version of the building code. It must be approved by council or board. The building codes are updated periodically and are usually based on industry standards. They can, however, be customized by the jurisdiction adopting them. The permit approval process begins with an application to the respective jurisdiction building department. When a set of plans come in, they start at the building department of the respective jurisdiction and they are routed to planning, fire, engineering, health and water/sewer for review. Once all of the necessary agencies have signed off on the plans, then the permit is issued and is valid for at least 18 months, until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued or the permit is extended. In regards to Washoe County, there is no specific local building code requirement for airport noise mitigation. There is something in code with respect to building within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved Part 150 noise contour, but there is nothing specific that requires particular noise mitigation efforts to be incorporated in the building if it is within a specific area. It is important to note that, at a minimum, developers must follow the base code. If they choose, a builder can use higher quality materials that may attenuate noise, but the government does not mandate this. There is nothing specific in the building code that addresses aircraft noise. No notification is required to be sent to the airport for a building permit unless it is in the previously mentioned FAA approved Part 150 noise contour. Although the building code does not address aircraft noise specifically, it does address noise comprehensively. The building code does consider train noise, traffic noise, neighbor noise, etc. The standards depend upon the project use (hospital, school, residential use). On the land use side, the compatibility of a project is considered. The entities look at what is compatible to the other uses in a given area. Zoning addresses noise in that manner. Where there is a specific ordinance, it is also looked at from a compatible use standpoint. The goal is to avoid the spillage of noise over property lines. From an enforcement standpoint, it comes down to a nuisance issue. In response to a question from the Panel, staff explained that some properties in close proximity to the airport have avigation easements. These avigation easements alert the property owner to possible noise, dust and fumes associated with aircraft overflights, as well as limit the height of structures on the property. The avigation easement is attached to the deed of the property and will show up in a title report. It is the property owner s responsibility to read over the documents. Nathan Gilbert, City of Reno Associate Planner, explained that the City of Reno has two zoning overlays. One is a flight path overlay, which deals mainly with safety concerns within the flight path. (It also addresses uses and density levels). The second is a noise overlay which conforms to the airport s noise contours. With this, the City of Reno requires an acoustical consultant to review the interior noise levels of a project. When a project requires a Discretionary Approval, the City will send the project to the airport for review. Any comments are put in as conditions of approval. Sienna Reid, Senior Planner with Truckee Meadows Regional Planning, shared that Regional Plan is at a very high level. Regional Planning only reviews Master Plan amendments and other actions that are considered projects of regional significance. She felt that Mr. Giesinger had covered the process thoroughly. Page 6

7 As for the developers, most are cooperative with what they are told to do. Any costs incurred are passed on to the property owners. Discussion ensued regarding whether a developer is required to disclose potential noise to a future property owner. Staff mentioned that they believed, at one time, sellers were required to fill out a checklist and one of the items noted was if the home was in a noise impacted area. It is important that potential buyers be responsible for looking into the property that they wish to purchase. The calls that are made to the airport are typically from new homeowners who feel they were not given enough information about their new home being in a flight path and how aircraft noise could potentially impact them. The Panel questioned whether, with all of the new growth and development, there should be additional rules and regulations on the developers to disclose information to prospective buyers regarding the potential for aircraft noise. Chairwoman Rose asked if there was something that could be done legally. Staff mentioned they are currently holding quarterly meetings with the planners from the various entities to discuss these issues and to see what might be done. Going after statute is a difficult process. Staff is working with the jurisdictional planners to see what they can do in relation to energy efficiency. The airport does currently review discretionary approval projects and gives a letter to the entities containing its recommendations when needed. When a project involves a change of use, the entities can place conditions of approval on a project. As every project is different, the Airport Authority does not spell out detailed requirements in its noise mitigation recommendations. Rather, it is up to the contractor and developer to verify that the correct materials are being used. It was also noted that there have been updates made to the codes which should help with the new development going on in the area. Most of the code updates have to do with energy efficiency, which should additionally help with noise mitigation. GENERAL COMMITTEE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS & ITEMS FOR FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held on Monday, March 21, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in the River Room. This will be Trish Tucker s last meeting, as she is now working in the Airport Authority s Public Affairs and Marketing Department. PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Sanders again voiced her appreciation to staff for working with her and her concerns about the increase in airplane noise in her neighborhood. ADJOURNMENT There being no further questions or business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. /fma Page 7